Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

British Dye Stuffs Corporation (Railways Transfer) Bill,

Wrexham and East Denbighshire Water Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Wigan Corporation Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Cattedown Wharves Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

County of London Electric Supply Company Bill [Lords],

To be read a Second time To-morrow.

Grimsby Corporation Bill [Lords],

Lymington Rural District Council Bill [Lords],

Tendring Hundred Water and Gas Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

Lochaber Water Power Bill (by Order),

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Wednesday.

London County Council (Money) Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRODUCTS CORPORATION, LIMITED.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: 1 and 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will state what actual cash payment has been made in respect
of the 50,000 £1 shares, constituting the nominal capital of the Products Corporation, Limited; what is the annual turnover of this firm and of the businesses which it has acquired; if he can state from what sources this company, with its small capital, derives the financial backing necessary to the successful carrying on of the business transactions in which it is involved;
(2) whether the business of the Products Corporation, Limited, has been established at the instigation of the German financier, Herr Stinnes, to continue the sale in this country of. German chemicals and other products, formerly carried on by firms which have been voluntarily dissolved because of their known German connections; and whether, having regard to the importance of making this country independent of Germany in regard to the supply of chemicals and other key products of which this corporation acts as agent for the Stinnes industrial group, he will institute an inquiry into the manner in which the firm came into being and the steps which it may be desirable to take to prevent German financiers obtaining a control of British markets in this secret manner?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Baldwin): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answers given to him on this subject on the 9th May. The inquiries are not yet completed, and consequently I cannot at present make any statement.

Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have put this question down two or three times, and that I have always had the same reply? Is the Government desirous of giving information to the House and the country on these subjects? If so, let us know where we are.

Mr. BALDWIN: As I stated in my reply, inquiries are proceeding. They are very difficult matters upon which to get information.

Sir F. HALL: When does the right hon. Gentleman think that it will be possible to reply, and I will then put down a question?

Mr. BALDWIN: I will ask my hon. Friend to put down a question when I have a reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS (FEES).

Colonel Sir C. YATE: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Report giving the latest information available regarding the fees levied by foreign countries on British commercial travellers entering those countries has been published; and, if not, when it will be published?

Mr. BALDWIN: The whole of the information, which is being obtained from abroad, has not yet been received, and I am afraid a short time must elapse before the Report is published. A considerable amount of information is, however, available at the Department of Overseas Trade.

Captain TERRELL: Is it the custom in this country to levy fees on foreign commercial travellers in this country, and, if not, why not?

Mr. BALDWIN: I should like notice of that question.

BRITISH MANUFACTURES (IMPORT PROHIBITIONS).

Mr. WADDINGTON: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade which of the European countries now prohibit the importation, except under licence, of British manufactures?

Mr. BALDWIN: Nearly all European countries have a system of import prohibitions, but the number of classes of articles prohibited varies very greatly, being small in the case of some countries, while in others practically all goods are covered by the prohibitions. The extent to which the prohibitions are mitigated by the issue of licences also varies. The regulations apply to British goods as well as to those of other origin.

Mr. WADDINGTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any efforts are being made by the British Government to secure the abolition of these prohibitions on imports?

Mr. BALDWIN: My hon. Friend must give me notice of that question.

Captain W. BENN: Is it not a fact that the Government themselves have introduced new prohibitions on foreign goods?

COTTON GOODS (FOREIGN CUSTOMS DUTIES).

Mr. WADDINGTON: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Customs duties on cotton manufactures have been increased in certain European countries since the War; which countries have so increased the duties; and will he state the rates of duties in force in such countries in 1913 and 1921 on representative grades of cotton manufactures?

Mr. BALDWIN: Since 1913 increases in the duties on cotton goods have come into force in France, Belgium, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, and Finland, whilst in several other countries general surcharges and surtaxes have been applied throughout their respective Customs tariffs, with a view to increasing duties payable in paper to their alleged equivalents in gold or for other purposes. The Customs tariffs on cotton goods are so detailed and vary so much in their basis from country to country that it would, I fear, be impossible to give in a concrete form the information asked for in the last part of the question.

TARIFF PROPOSALS, UNITED STATES.

Mr. HURD: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the present position of the tariff proposals now before the Congress of the United States of America; and whether he has any information bearing out the statement, cabled from New York that, by agreement between the two Houses of Congress, the Bill will become operative in June for a period of six months, and will impose upon agricultural products duties so high as to be practically prohibitive, and empower the Secretary of the Treasury to exclude from the United States any foreign goods which, in his opinion, will injure a similar United States industry by their low cost price?

Mr. BALDWIN: The Emergency Tariff Bill has received the assent of the President of the United States, and came into operation on 28th May for a period of six months. I understand that the duties on agricultural products are being increased, and that anti-dumping provisions of the nature indicated in the question are also included in the measure.

Mr. HURD: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is desirable that the House should have information of all the necessary details affecting our trade?

Mr. BALDWIN: If my hon. Friend will let me know the point on which the House wishes to have information, I will see whether it can be given, but the details of all foreign tariffs would be overwhelming.

Mr. HURD: Is there no ready means by which the Board of Trade can give the trading community full information on a matter of this sort, which is already decided in a foreign country?

Mr. BALDWIN: I will consider that, but I think generally the traders of this country are well informed.

WOOL.

Mr. CAUTLEY: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, with a view to assisting sheep farmers in the conduct of their business, he can state the amount of wool now held by or on behalf of the Government and the arrangements made as to time, quantity, and price for putting it upon the market?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): I have been asked to reply to this question. The approximate amount of wool now held by or on behalf of the Government is 1,500,000 bales. Marketing arrangements must necessarily vary from time to time, but in general wool is placed on the market in quantities commensurate with the absorbing power of the trade, and sold to the highest bidder subject to a reasonable reserve.

Captain TERRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much wool has been disposed of by the Government in the last 12 months?

Mr. YOUNG: I must have notice of that question.

Captain TERRELL: Surely you ought to know?

Mr. CAUTLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman not see that his attitude demoralises the market altogether?

Mr. YOUNG: That must be a matter of argument.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

WIRELESS OPERATORS.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade
if he is aware of the heavy dismissals of wireless telegraphy operators by the shipping companies during the last few months owing to the employment of the class of watchers in Class 2 passenger and cargo steamers in lieu of trained operators; that some 300 ex-service men who have been trained by the Ministry of Labour as operators at great expense are now out of employment; that the employment of these watchers means increased risk to life and property at sea owing to their inability to read Morse efficiently; and whether he will consider amending the Rules made under the Merchant Shipping (Wireless Telegraphy) Act, 1919, so as to make the carrying of two trained operators compulsory in Class 2 vessels, and the abolition of the watcher class?

Mr. BALDWIN: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which was given on 9th May to the hon. Member for Eastbourne. I am sending him a copy of that reply.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the situation has become worse since then owing to the further dismissal of these highly skilled wireless operators, and is he further aware that the various seamen's organisations are firmly in support of these wireless operators in demanding that there should be two of them carried in a second class ship, so that there can be a continual watch?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am afraid that a great many of these dismissals are incidental to the terrible state of trade and industry, including shipping. I will look into the point.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: In view of this terrible state of shipping, is it not all the more desirable to give these skilled ratings employment, and will not the abolition of the watcher class do that?

Captain Viscount CURZON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any of these skilled operators are out of work owing to industrial difficulties preventing ships sailing?

Mr. BALDWIN: I must ask for notice of that question.

PENSIONS.

Sir J. BUTCHER: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to that portion of the Report of the Select Committee on Pensions which recommended that all officers and other ranks of the mercantile marine who served afloat during the War in British merchant vessels should be regarded as having been engaged on war service, provided that such service was performed under circumstances where the normal risks or strain were increased by war conditions; whether this recommendation has yet been adopted by the Government; and, if not, whether immediate attention will be given to the matter?

Mr. BALDWIN: This recommendation is receiving attention, and I hope to be able to let my hon. and learned Friend know in the course of a few days the terms of the decision arrived at.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEAT SUPPLIES.

Colonel NEWMAN: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will ascertain if there is an unusual quantity of imported meat now being held in cold storage in this country or on board ship awaiting discharge; is he aware that the consumer desires to have cheaper meat; and will he say if the investigations he has been able to make lead him to suppose that this hold up of imported meat is the reason why the price of meat has not fallen to a more appreciable extent?

Mr. BALDWIN: The quantity of meat now in store in this country, or in ship awaiting discharge, is undoubtedly large; but I understand that, so far from sales toeing restricted, every effort is being made by reduction of prices to dispose of the meat. For instance, the wholesale price of certain descriptions of imported meat has fallen by more than 50 per cent. during the past two months.

Mr. J. JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me why the retail price has not been correspondingly reduced?

Mr. BALDWIN: I must ask for notice of that question.

Mr. W. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Board of
Trade have any power in a case where meat is being held up for a considerable time to make them put it on the market?

Mr. BALDWIN: My information is that it is not being held up.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY DISPUTE.

COAL PRICES.

Mr. SITCH: 12.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been drawn to the present high price of coal; and whether any steps will be taken to limit these present prices to a reasonable figure in the interests of consumers generally?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Bridgeman): I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of 12th May to the hon. Member for Walthamstow. The matter is being very carefully watched, and action will be taken where it appears that prices are being charged which cannot be justified by increased costs referred to in that reply.

EMERGENCY REGULATIONS.

Mr. W. THORNE: 25.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the wide powers given to the Government in the Emergency Regulations passed, by this House on 4th May; that if and when the property mentioned in (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) of Regulation 13 is taken over by the Government it will be possible to make arrangements with the Miners' Federation and enable the Government to pay the miners the wages demanded, thereby putting an end to the present lock-out: and whether he is prepared to advise the Government to put Regulation 13 into operation at once?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): I can add nothing to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member on the 9th of May.

Mr. THORNE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that putting this Regulation into operation will avoid all trouble?

Colonel GREIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the Regulation be put into operation, it will apply compulsory labour to the mines?

Mr. THORNE: Rubbish!

Mr. J. JONES: What about compulsory arbitration?

SANKEY COMMISSION (COST).

Major M. WOOD: 61.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what was the total cost to the State of the proceedings in connection with the Sankey Commission of Inquiry into the conditions of the coal industry in the spring of 1919?

Mr. YOUNG: The total cost of the Sankey Commission was approximately £8,400.

COMPULSORY ARBITRATION.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether, as reported in the Press, he informed the executive of the Miners' Federation that, if they did not agree to the suggestions made by the Government, legislation would be introduced compelling them to submit their case to arbitration?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative. The Government hope that the terms suggested may be accepted, but I made no announcement of the steps which were to be taken in the event of their being rejected either by the miners or by the mineowners. The question of asking Parliament to establish a system of compulsory arbitration was not even mentioned. It was agreed that no note should be taken of the interview, and that nothing should be communicated to the Press except what was agreed upon by the parties. This shows, I regret to say, the danger of depending entirely upon arrangements of that character. I earnestly hope that in future that, when interviews of this kind take place that an unauthorised communication will not be sent to the Press by any of those present, otherwise it will be quite impossible to conduct these negotiations. Having reporters present makes it very difficult to do business at all. This is one of the illustrations of the danger depending entirely upon reports of this kind.

Mr. W. THORNE: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain how this report got into the Press about the Government making this definite statement to the Miners' Federation, that unless they were prepared to accept the terms, the Govern-
ment would bring in a Bill for compulsory arbitration? The report has already done a tremendous amount of harm in the Miners' Federation in all parts of the country.

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot account for it.

Mr. LUNN: But was the statement made?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, no! The words "compulsory arbitration" were not even used, I venture to say, in the whole course of the proceedings. How they came to be reported I do not know. Something was said about what would happen if the owners refused to carry out certain terms, and I think I said, "Well, the Government would have to consider what steps they would take to press them to do so." I do not know whether someone drew the inference as to compulsory arbitration from that observation, but the words "compulsory arbitration" were not used by anybody during the whole course of the proceedings.

Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the first reading of this statement has created the impression that the report was an official report? That is the impression it gives one, and it has done undoubted damage among the miners of the country—

Mr. THORNE: No doubt about that!

Mr. LAWSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman see his way to take steps against the people who publish such statements?

The PRIME MINISTER: It was certainly not official on this occasion. I should be very much surprised if anyone on the part of the Government—I mean that certainly no member of the Government has done it, and I doubt very much whether—well, I do not think it is fair to say more—all I know is that it has appeared in the Press, but I do not know where it came from. The words "compulsory arbitration" certainly do not represent in the least what passed at the conference.

Mr. GEORGE BARKER: Will the Prime Minister issue an official denial?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am giving that now—at the first opportunity I have had.

Mr. LAMBERT: Was an official note taken of this interview?

The PRIME MINISTER: No; we discussed the question whether there should be an official note taken or not. On these occasions, I usually put myself in the hands of the parties, and inquire whether or not they want an official note taken. On this occasion they said, "No, we think on the whole we can talk much more freely if there is not an official note."There was not even an official note-taker present. We relied upon the honourable understanding that nothing should be published except what was agreed upon. Unfortunately, someone made a statement to the Press who, naturally, were hungering for information about this very important conference, and this has appeared, very much to my surprise, and to the surprise of all others present.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Is it possible to do something considering the injury which has been done to the prospects of settlement? I understand that up and down the country—I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has had his attention directed to the matter—but in many cases the meetings have not even considered the proposals, but merely taken the alleged threat of compulsion, and turned the thing down. Under these circumstances it is most unfortunate. May we, therefore, assume that it was an enemy who made this report—someone who did not wish the terms to be accepted?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MIDLAND STATION, NOTTINGHAM.

Mr. ATKEY: 13.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that there is still a great loss of time and inconvenience caused daily to thousands of the travelling public who use the Midland station at Nottingham owing to the exit opposite Trent Street remaining closed; and will he state whether, under the powers of the Railways Bill, he will be competent to require the Midland Railway Company to re-open this exit?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Sir Eric Geddes): In reply to the first part of this question, I have nothing to add to my previous answers on the subject. The reply to the second part is in the
negative. In this connection, however, I would refer the hon. Member to Clause 12 of the Railways Bill.

Lord H. CAVENDISH - BENTINCK: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept my assurance that the closing of this exit does entail a great deal of inconvenience to the people of Nottingham?

Mr. ATKEY: Has the right hon. Gentleman had an opportunity of seeing the petition which I presented to the House containing 20,000 signatures?

Sir E. GEDDES: I cannot say that I have seen them all, but I have seen many of them.

Mr. ATKEY: 14.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has been able to ascertain from the Midland Railway Company the information promised on 29th November last in reference to the date when the platform tax was first levied at their Nottingham station and the amount of revenue which has accrued therefrom?

Sir E. GEDDES: In accordance with the promise made to my hon. Friend on the 29th November last, I applied for and received from the Midland Railway Company a statement as to the amounts received from the issue of platform tickets and the cost of the staff engaged at the barriers which are similar in amount. The company objects to the exact figures being published, and I do not think the matter is one in which the House would wish me to override the company's view, having regard to the Bill now before this House.

TOURIST AND WEEK-END TICKETS.

Mr. GILBERT: 16 and 17.
asked the Minister of Transport (1) whether, on the resumption of normal railway traffic, he will urge on the various railway companies the desirability of issuing tourist tickets for the holiday months with the same facilities for alternative routes and stopping-off privileges as were granted by the companies on tourist tickets issued before the War;
(2) whether any arrangements have been made by all or any of the railway companies to issue cheap return tickets available specially for weekends, namely, from Friday to Monday or Tuesday; can he state at what rate of fare such tickets will be issued; and whether such tickets
are limited for issue to certain stations, or if they will be issued from and to all stations on any railway company's system?

Sir E. GEDDES: The railway companies have already been requested to grant reduced fare facilities in all cases where, in the opinion of their responsible managers, an increase in net revenue will result, and I have no reason to doubt that the companies in their own interests will act accordingly as soon as they are in a position to provide the necessary facilities.

THIRD-CLASS SEASON TICKETS.

Mr. GILBERT: 18.
asked the Minister of Transport whether all railway companies are compelled to issue third-class season tickets or if the issue of such tickets is at the discretion of the railway companies; is he aware that certain companies refuse to issue such tickets between certain stations; and will he take steps, in view of the present high cost of railway fares, to urge all railway companies to issue third-class season tickets from and to all stations on their systems?

Sir E. GEDDES: The railway companies are under no legal obligation to issue season tickets. I am aware that some companies do not issue third-class season tickets between all their stations. Certain companies have already been asked to consider the extension of the issue of such tickets, but as such a course would, in their opinion, result in a loss of net revenue, I fear that it is not practicable to press the matter in present circumstances. Further information on this subject is contained in the answer given to the hon. Member for Ilford on the 19th April last, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

RAILWAY SHAREHOLDERS.

Mr. T. A. LEWIS: 19.
asked the Minister of Transport what is the total number of shareholders in the railways of Great Britain and Ireland, and what is the average amount of each holding?

Sir E. GEDDES: I regret that the information for which the hon. Member asks is not available, and could only be obtained with considerable clerical labour.

THAMES CONSERVANCY.

Brigadier-General Sir O. THOMAS: 20.
asked the Minister of Transport who is responsible for the appointment of the Thames Conservancy; whether a statement of revenue and expenditure is published or submitted to any authority other than the Conservancy; what was the revenue and expenditure for last year; and what remuneration the members of the Conservancy receive?

Sir E. GEDDES: The appointment of members of the Thames Conservancy rests with the bodies mentioned in the 3rd Schedule to the Port of London Act, 1908, but two out of the four members to be appointed there under by the Board of Trade are now appointed by the Minister of Transport. The annual accounts of the Conservancy are presented to Parliament by the Conservators each year. No remuneration is payable to the Conservators other than the Chairman, to whom the Conservators may pay such annual sum not exceeding £700 as they, with the approval of the Minister, think fit. I understand, however, that the present Chairman gives his services free.

Sir O. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the licence for pleasure boats has been increased by 1,200 per cent., inflicting a terrible hardship on a comparatively poor class of men, and that, while the revenue of the Conservancy is about £85,000, the cost of administering that revenue is over £14,000?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member seems to have more information than the right hon. Gentleman.

HOLYHEAD HARBOUR.

Sir O. THOMAS: 21.
asked the Minister of Transport whether it is still the intention of the London and North-Western Railway Company to proceed with the deepening of the Holyhead harbour; and, if so, in view of the exceptional unemployment in Anglesey, if he will urge that the work be expedited?

Sir E. GEDDES: Negotiations are in progress for leasing certain properties at Holyhead to the company. It is hoped that these negotiations will be successfully concluded at an early date, and that it will be open to the company to apply for permission to introduce a late
Bill for the necessary powers in the present Session. The dredging of the harbour would then be taken in hand.

FOREIGN MOTOR VEHICLES.

Viscount CURZON: 23.
asked the Minister of Transport whether motor vehicles brought over to England under a foreign triptych are now compelled to adopt a special number plate and special number, whereas English motor vehicles are allowed to travel abroad with English number plates; what is the reason for such a Regulation; and can it be considered by the House of Commons before being enforced?

Sir E. GEDDES: No change has been made with regard to the identification marks required to be carried by motor cars brought into this country by foreign tourists. If my Noble Friend has in mind any particular case in which difficulties have arisen, and will furnish me with particulars, I will have inquiries made at once.

Viscount CURZON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Automobile Association are issuing now special number plates for cars imported into the country?

Sir E. GEDDES: I think that it is only for cars that do not come into the general arrangement, but I do not think that there has been any alteration in the practice.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 26.
asked the Prime Minister whether facilities will be given for a discussion in this House of the subjects mentioned in the agenda of the conference of Dominion Prime Ministers before that conference takes place?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 30.
asked the Prime Minister whether, before the Premiers' Conference meets, he will give this House an opportunity to discuss the programme or subjects likely to come before that conference, so that the British Parliament may not be precluded from stating in general terms the British view, just as the Canadian, Australian, and other Parliaments have stated the Canadian or Australian position?

The PRIME MINISTER: If there be a general desire in the House for a discussion, I should be willing to try and arrange it, but unless more precise indications are given of the matter or matters which it is desired to discuss, it would seem useless to give a day.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman follow the example of the Prime Ministers in the self-governing Dominions, where, in each case, the Prime Minister himself made a statement as to the business to be examined and discussed at the conference?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer which I have given indicates that if there be any desire by the House to have a discussion, it will be arranged, but as our time is very limited, I do not wish to press it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in all quarters of the House there is a desire to discuss the agenda of subjects which are likely to be brought before the Imperial Cabinet before the Imperial Cabinet meets?

Mr. HURD: 36.
asked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that the term "Imperial Cabinet "as officially applied to the forthcoming gathering of Empire statesmen in London, implies collective executive powers, and seeing that General Smuts has declared the term to be a complete misnomer, and that this gathering is purely advisory in character as regards the Dominion and Indian representatives who attend, he will, in order to avoid misapprehension overseas, call it an Imperial Cabinet Conference?

The PRIME MINISTER: I propose to discuss with the other Prime Ministers how the forthcoming Conference should be described.

Mr. HURD: What are we to call it in the meantime?

The PRIME MINISTER: Simply call it a conference.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-JAPANESE TREATY.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: 27.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to state whether it is the intention of the Government to renew the Anglo-Japanese Treaty; whether the terms of the Treaty
will be submitted to the House for ratification; whether the Government will insist upon Japan recognising her obligations under the present Treaty to maintain the independence and territorial integrity of Korea and China; and whether the restoration to Korea of her governmental, educational, and other institutions now dominated by Japan will be made one of the conditions of the Treaty, together with the cancellation of the Treaty between China and Japan which was signed as a result of Japan's ultimatum to China on 7th May, 1915?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member by the Leader of the House on the 11th May to a similar question.

Mr. MACLEAN: Am I to understand from that that the Government desire to withhold information from the House until after the Treaty is signed, and that this House is to have no opportunity of finding out what the Clauses in that treaty are?

The PRIME MINISTER: No.

Mr. MACLEAN: I give notice that I will repeat this question next Tuesday, and that if the answer be still unsatisfactory, I shall try to move the Adjournment of the House.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the House have an opportunity of discussing the Treaty before it is finally ratified?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think that there will be many opportunities of discussing it before that arrives.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I mean a discussion which will give us an opportunity to vote.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREECE AND TURKEY.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 28.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the great loss to British trade as a result of the fighting and disturbed conditions in Turkey-in-Asia; and whether His Majesty's Government are at present taking any steps to bring to an end the hostilities between the Greeks and Turks in Asia Minor?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the
affirmative. With regard to the second part, I can add nothing to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle North on 21st April.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that answer means that we are doing nothing and that we are allowing the question to drift along without making any effort to bring about peace?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME-GROWN WHEAT (SUBSIDY).

Major BARNES: 29.
asked the Prime Minister by what statutory authority 25s. per quarter is being paid to millers out of the funds of the Wheat Commission for every quarter of British wheat which is milled?

The PRIME MINISTER: I can add nothing to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture on the 19th April last.

Major BARNES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that nothing was said at that time because this question was not asked, that the question asked then was as to whether the money had been promised, and the question now is by what statutory authority it is being paid? There is no information on that subject.

The PRIME MINISTER: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will look up the Report, he will find that it was dealt with very fully by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. W. THORNE: Does this mean a subsidy, and, if so, how much is it going to cost?

Oral Answers to Questions — SITTING OF THE HOUSE (DERBY DAY).

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: 31.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Wednesday next, the 1st June, is a great historical anniversary; and will he consider the propriety, of adjourning the House over that date in order to afford Members the opportunity of suitably observing the occasion?

The PRIME MINISTER: I presume that the hon. Member refers to the "glorious 1st of June,"but it has never been the practice of this House to adjourn in memory or in anticipation of victories.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, though there were many victories on the 1st of June in addition to the glorious victory of Ushant, what I had in mind was the fact that the 1st of June is also the anniversary of the birth of Robert Cecil, the first Lord of Salisbury, and in view of that fact will he reconsider the question?

Mr. W. THORNE: Will the Prime Minister give us a "tip" for the winner?

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

GERMAN WAR CRIMINALS (TRIAL).

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: 32.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the sentence passed upon the first convicted German War criminal by the Leipzig Court, the Government will consider the propriety of having the rest of the trials removed to London?

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): I have been asked to reply to this question. There is no reason to doubt that when the present series of trials, selected and accepted as it was as a test of good faith, has been completed all relevant matters, including the sentences passed, will be considered by the Powers concerned, and such action will be taken as may then be resolved upon. Meantime it does not appear to be desirable, even if it were practicable, to interrupt the present series of trials.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: In the meantime, are we to accept as final the verdicts passed by this Court, and what is the sentence passed on the second prisoner?

Sir G. HEWART: I cannot say what is the sentence passed on the second prisoner, as I have not the information. I do, with all seriousness, deprecate the tendency which I observe, not only in this House, but also in some parts of the Press, to sit in judgment upon this sentence upon very imperfect material. For my own part, I know in outline the evidence that was to be adduced, but I have not yet received a full report of the trial. What was proved and what was proved per contra I do not know. I propose to wait until I have full information.

Sir F. BANBURY: Are we to understand that the House will have an opportunity of discussing the question of the
sentence passed upon the man called Heinen by the Supreme Court of Germany when the full facts are before us?

Mr. HOWARD GRITTEN: Is the learned Attorney-General primâ facie satisfied that the sentence is proof of the good faith of the Germans?

Sir G. HEWART: I do not know what is meant by the phrase "primâ facie satisfied." In order to be satisfied or dissatisfied, I propose to wait until full information is received. With regard to the other question, it is not within my province to say whether the House will have an opportunity of discussion or not.

Mr. J. JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to see that people in Ireland who are being arrested shall have a legal opportunity of trial?

HON. MEMBERS: "No!" and "Sit down!"

Mr. JONES: Why should I? Shut up!

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: Would the Prime Minister consider the advisability of making representations to the German Government in view of the intense and passionate indignation of people in this country after having read the evidence accepted by the judge presiding over the Court, which proved that infamous and inhuman conduct was exhibited towards British prisoners—conduct for which the contemptible sentence proclaimed turned the whole thing into a judicial farce?

Sir G. HEWART: I do not know that the proper course in reply to that question would not be to give the answer I have already given. I can only say that if there be the "intense and passionate indignation" to which the hon. Member refers, it is in my opinion a little premature.

GERMAN REPARATION.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: 37.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in the event of Germany's failure in the future to carry out any of the terms in the London Agreement, the Sanctions in the ultimatum will become immediately applicable?

The PRIME MINISTER: This question is hypothetical, and I am not, therefore, in a position to add anything to what has already been said on this subject.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: If there be any commitments they are not hypothetical, but very practical and important, and will the Prime Minister state what are the consequences that will inevitably arise according to the commitments to which he has committed this country?

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope they will not arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (EXPENSES).

Mr. C. WHITE: 33.
asked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that Members of Parliament voluntarily surrendered the privilege of franking letters when penny postage was established, and in view of the all-round increase in postal charges, he will reconsider the recommendation of the Select Committee to allow Members of Parliament a limited amount of free postage?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am unable to accept the interpretation suggested in the first part of the question, and with regard to the last part I cannot add anything to the replies which have already been given on this subject.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the majority of letters which hon. Members receive are in connection with Government business and refer to the neglect of the Departments to deal with pensions and similar cases? Does he not think that a limited postal allowance would be advantageous?

Mr. GRITTEN: 46.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Government have inquired from the principal railway companies if they would be willing to grant Members of Parliament passes between London and their constituencies either free or on greatly reduced terms; and, if not, will he cause such inquiries to be made, and inform this House of the result?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): No, Sir. We have not made inquiries of this kind, and do not propose to do so. If it be desirable that Members should be relieved of these charges, it would not seem to me proper that
Members should owe the relief to companies whose affairs are frequently the subject of Parliamentary discussion.

Mr. GRITTEN: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman, before making the announcement to the House relative to the granting of passes to Members, did not take the ordinary businesslike precaution of first ascertaining from the railway companies the most favourable terms on which passes could be obtained?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As regards the terms on which we should pay for the concession, if the concession be made, I consulted the Ministry of Transport, who had the arrangements in hand. I did not, acting on behalf of His Majesty's Government, think it proper to ask a favour from companies whose affairs are often the business of this House.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Is it not possible for the Government, which has the sending over the railways of very large quantities of Government material, to get from the railway companies similar privileges to those enjoyed by business firms up and down the country, by means of traders' tickets? Is it not within the Government's province to obtain similar concessions?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think the two cases are analogous. I do not want to anticipate Wednesday's discussion, but it does seem to me that if it be in the public interest—and that is the only ground which would justify it—that Members should be paid travelling expenses, the relief should be given out of public funds. This House neither individually nor corporately ought to accept favours from any bodies whose affairs may be under discussion here.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that my question does not involve asking a favour, but is simply putting the Government in the same relationship with the railway companies as the trading firms of this country who send goods over the railways?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: A trading firm, no doubt, if it has a certain volume of trade, and agrees to put that trade on with a particular company, may get certain concessions from that company. I do not think His Majesty's Government
or this House should be put into the same position in relation to the railway companies.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 47.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Treasury will lay down rules as to the administration of the issue of free travelling tickets for Members; and, if not, by whom such rules will be laid down?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. The rules as to the administration will be laid down solely through the House of Commons administrative offices.

Captain BENN: Was any Parliamentary sanction given before these tickets were issued?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That was explained in the statement made by me before the Whitsuntide Recess, which contains the answer to that question.

Captain BENN: Was the permission of the Committee on Supply obtained before this new service was introduced?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a question which should be put down.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

LAND BILL (RE-INTRODUCTION).

Major O'NEILL: 34.
asked the Prime Minister what is the reason for the delay in proceeding with the Irish Land Bill which was introduced last Session?

The PRIME MINISTER: I regret that, owing to the exigencies of Parliamentary business, it has not been possible up to the present to re-introduce this Bill.

Major O'NEILL: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that he stated to me more than a year ago that this Bill was a necessary corollary to the Government of Ireland Act, and that it would be passed concurrently with that Act? Is he now aware that the Government of Ireland Act has been passed for some months?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have a recollection that I gave a pledge in the House that a Bill would be brought forward, but we found it very difficult to find time. The Bill has been prepared, and I hope it will be re-introduced shortly.

Major O'NEILL: Does the right hon. Gentleman not know that this Bill will be practically non-contentious, and that if it should go to a Standing Committee, it will pass very quickly?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does it involve any charge on the Exchequer of this country?

The PRIME MINISTER: Oh, yes. I am afraid my hon. and gallant Friend (Major O'Neill) is taking much too sanguine a view of the prospect of obtaining unanimity for the voting of money from the British Exchequer to Ireland. I do not think British Members take quite the same view, because we know that the Bill does contain contentious possibilities, and we cannot find time to press it.

Major O'NEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Government, restate the pledge he has given—that this Bill is to be taken up by the Government, and passed if the Government can pass it?

DUBLIN CUSTOMS HOUSE.

Sir A. FELL: 35.
asked the Prime Minister whether the heavy loss occasioned by the destruction by fire of the Customs House buildings at Dublin will fall upon the city of Dublin; and if this House may have an assurance from the Government that no British money will be spent in rebuilding it or any other public buildings which may be wilfully destroyed in Ireland?

The PRIME MINISTER: This fine building, which was justly regarded as one of the most precious possessions of the Irish people, has been wantonly destroyed by the deliberate act of the Sinn Fein organisation. There can be no question of making good the damage at the cost of the British Exchequer. Under the law, the loss will fall on the local authorities, but it will, of course, be within the power of the Southern Parliament to make special provision for meeting it in whole or in part. A claim will be presented in due course under the Malicious Injuries Act. The Board of Works estimate the loss at some £2,000,000.

Mr. LINDSAY: Can the Prime Minister say whether the loss, or part of it, or the contents of the building, were covered by insurance?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Are there any grants due to the city or county of Dublin from the British Exchequer which could be stopped in order to make good this loss?

The PRIME MINISTER: I could not answer that question without notice.

SETTLEMENT PROPOSALS.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 43.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to an article in the "Round Table "advocating that colonial autonomy should be granted to the North and South of Ireland and that the apportionment of the shares of the National Debt should be the subject of judicial arbitration; and whether, in order to put an end to the present state of affairs, he will adopt the policy herein put forward?

The PRIME MINISTER: Even if Parliament approved such a policy, I have every reason to believe that it would not be accepted by the men who are responsible for violence in Ireland, but, on the contrary, that such a declaration would be regarded by them as a sign of weakness on the part of the Imperial Government, and thus encourage further violence.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the sum asked for between North and South is beyond Ireland's financial resources?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not understand the question.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is it not a fact that it is agreed by both North and South that they cannot pay the sum asked for?

The PRIME MINISTER: I certainly never heard of any conclusion of that kind being arrived at by the North and South. The South say they will not pay.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is he aware the Belfast Chamber of Commerce passed a resolution to the effect that—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should put a question of that kind upon the Paper.

CROWN FORCES (STRENGTH).

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 44.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is intended to add to the strength of the Crown forces in Ireland?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is proposed to strengthen the Crown Forces in Ireland. When the arrangements are complete, a statement will be made to Parliament. It is not intended to send any of the Reserves to Ireland.

Captain W. BENN: When the right hon. Gentleman makes that statement, will he also say what is the annual cost of maintaining the war in Ireland?

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is he aware that the whole trouble in Ireland arises from the fact that the Government has treated the Irish question as a military, and not as a political question; and will not the sending of more troops only add to the trouble?

ELECTIONS (PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION).

Colonel NEWMAN: 45.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in view of the fact that the recent general election of Members of the Northern Irish Parliament was the first Parliamentary election to be held in this country under the methods of Proportional Representation, he has any information to give the House as to the success or non-success of this method of election?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

HAIRDRESSING TRADE BOARD.

Mr. J. JONES: 67
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that inquiries have long since been completed, a definite date has been fixed for the establishment of a trade board in Ireland for the hairdressing trade; and whether the establishment of a trade board for the grocery and provisions trade in Ireland is being considered?

Colonel GREIG: Before this question is put, may I submit that this is not a question which can be answered by the Minister of Labour, inasmuch as it deals with one of the subjects reserved to the Irish Government, and as there is legislation setting up a trades board in reference to hairdressers in Ireland, no question on the subject should be put here.

Mr. SPEAKER: My understanding is that there have been proceedings with regard to setting up this trade board in Ireland, and it would be in order to ask if they have been brought to a termination.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): We are preparing the ground with a view to taking definite action in the case of these two trades as soon as circumstances permit, but it is not possible to give definite dates for the establishment of the boards. My hon. Friend will appreciate that it is desirable for the future success of the boards to take the preliminary steps as far as possible with the agreement and co-operation of both employers and workers concerned.

Colonel GREIG: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: I suggest that the hon. and gallant Member should put down a question whether this matter is not now one for the Parliament established in Ireland.

Mr. J. JONES: Have not the employers and the employed agreed to the establishment of this trade board?

Sir M. BARLOW: I believe they have gone some way towards substantial agreement, but in these matters it is desirable to carry with one as many persons as possible before the board is set up.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Captain REDMOND: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Agriculture whether any further outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease has occurred in Ireland Since that reported from New Ross, county Wexford, on May 22nd; and if he will take the same precautionary measures with regard to this outbreak as he has done in the numerous recent cases in England, namely, by drawing a cordon around the affected area alone, and thereby permit the cattle trade from the rest of Ireland to resume its normal course?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir A. Boscawen): I am informed by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland that on 28th May another outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease was confirmed at New Ross, county Wexford. The question of the conditions under which the cattle trade from Ireland may be resumed is under consideration.

Captain REDMOND: Is it not a fact that a short while ago the right hon. Gentleman led me to understand, by way of question and answer, that if a case of foot-and-mouth disease occurred in Ireland, the same treatment would be meted out in regard to that case as he has done with regard to numerous cases that have occurred in England recently; and, if he will not mete out the same treatment, will he please tell me why?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Yes, I am quite prepared to adopt that policy, in the interest of British farmers as well as Irish farmers, as soon as I am satisfied of the whereabouts of outbreaks in Ireland. But the matter must be absolutely cleared up. I am not certain there may not be other sources of infection in Ireland at the present time. However, the whole matter is under consideration at the present moment.

Captain REDMOND: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to a statement, which recently appeared in the Press, that the English Ministry of Agriculture had concluded that there had been several unreported cases of foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland for many weeks; what grounds had the English Department of Agriculture for forming that conclusion; did they take any steps whatsoever to consult those upon the spot in Ireland with regard to these alleged cases; and, whether the Irish Department itself even was consulted in the matter before the statement was made?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Yes, Sir; we have been in consultation with the Irish Department right through, and we hold that our statement was perfectly correct. The Irish Department denied there was any foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland. Subsequently two cases were located at the very spot from which the cattle came, as shown in outbreaks in England after arrival. Under those circumstances, until I have got more definite information, I cannot permit the importation of stores from Ireland, but I hope to be able to clear up the matter with the Irish Department of Agriculture shortly, and I shall have the trade resumed as soon as possible.

Captain REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman state clearly what grounds he has for making this extraordinary and extravagant statement that
many cases of foot-and-mouth disease are in Ireland at present unreported, and will he take this opportunity of withdrawing that statement, which must do such harm to this great cattle industry?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No, Sir, I cannot withdraw the statement—

Captain REDMOND: It is unwarranted!

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Quite a number of outbreaks have occurred in England, and in cattle which have come from Ireland, and from a particular part of Ireland. The Irish authorities denied altogether that there was any foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland. Subsequently they admitted that there had been an outbreak in that particular place. Under these circumstances, I can neither withdraw the statement nor take any further steps until I am satisfied that there is no foot-and-mouth disease in other parts of Ireland.

Captain REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman say—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member must put any further questions down.

MILITARY OPERATIONS.

Mr. J. JONES: 81.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is now in a position to state the result of his inquiries into the case of a number of Dublin painters who, on the 6th instant, whilst proceeding to their work at Rathcoole by motor car, having sustained a puncture in one of the types, were confronted with a party of members of the Royal Air Force with firearms in their hands, and ordered to hold up their hands; that several shots were fired, one of which hit the artificial leg of Mr. Doran, completely shattering it; that the soldiers used threatening language, and passed remarks to the effect that as some of their comrades had been shot the preceding night somebody would have to go under for it; whether an application for compensation to make good Mr. Doran's leg has been received; and whether, in view of the unwarranted action of the soldiers, it is proposed to grant the compensation asked?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): The Commander-in-Chief informs me that on 6th May a party of Royal Air Force,
while proceeding to Dublin by lorry, encountered a motor car which halted in front of them, and from which six men dismounted. As this particular section of the road had been the scene of ambushes of Royal Air Force vehicles during the preceding fortnight, and as the attitude of these men appeared suspicious, the non-commissioned officer in command decided to search them. They were ordered to hold up their hands, but did not all comply, whereupon two shots were fired in the air to emphasise the orders. The non-commissioned officer examined the whole party, and, satisfied with their bonâ fides, allowed them to proceed. Although the normal duties of the Royal Air Force do not include the searching of suspected civilians, it is obvious that if Crown forces are subject to murderous attacks they must take steps to protect themselves. I am informed that Mr. Doran made a statement to the police shortly after the incident alleging that his artificial leg had been damaged by a bullet, and that he has lodged an application for compensation, which will, of course, be duly considered.

Mr. JONES: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the affidavits which I sent him in connection with this question, and has he any reply to make upon them?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: This reply I have prepared myself, and I am convinced that it is a correct representation of the facts.

Mr. JONES: When can the right hon. Gentleman give the decision as to whether this man was entitled to compensation, as the right hon. Gentleman admits he was innocent of any offence?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: As soon as possible. Of course, if the man has suffered he should be compensated.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: If the right hon. Gentleman believes that this man has been hit by a bullet in an artificial leg, will he withdraw the statement, which he has just made to the House, that they fired in the air?

Captain W. BENN: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary whether a proclamation has been issued by the military governor commanding the Kerry Brigade ordering the closing of creameries as a punishment to the inhabitants of certain districts; whether such proclamation was
made with the assent of the Cabinet; and whether the sufferers have been invited to rebutt the evidence upon which such punishment is alleged to be founded?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am informed by the Commander-in-Chief that it has been decided to close a limited number of creameries in the martial law area in localities where outrages have been frequent, where road-cutting and other forms of sabotage are prevalent, and where other punishments and restrictions have not had the desired effect. The number of creameries to be closed in any one area is at present limited to three. Military governors who adopt this form of punishment are instructed to announce publicly by means of proclamation, or through the local Press, the reason why each creamery is closed, and the duration of the closure. In regard to the last part of the question, these measures are not taken against specific individuals, but are intended to bring home to the inhabitants of the locality generally their responsibility for outrages committed with their knowledge and connivance.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have been in communication with the three creameries, and is he aware that the military governor gives no reason for closing these three creameries other than that the farmers did not prevent the roads being trenched; but if the farmers are not allowed to have arms, how can they be expected to prevent the operations of the Irish Republican Army? Where is the sense of punishing these men for crimes they cannot possibly prevent?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: No one regrets more than I do the need for these drastic Regulations—

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Crocodile tears!

Sir H. GREENWOOD: But that part of Ireland is under martial-law and, while insurrection, assassination, and outrage continues—

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: There have been no ambushes in that area!

Sir H. GREENWOOD: —the Commander-in-Chief shall certainly have my endorsement in taking what steps he considers necessary.

SHOOTING, CORK.

Mr. LAWSON: 82.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he has seen the statement of Mrs. de Roiste, wife of one of the Sinn Fein members for Cork, that Father O'Callaghan was shot in her house during curfew on the early morning of 15th May by men with English accents and under the influence of drink, and whom she believed to be soldiers or police; and whether an inquiry has yet been held into this case and with what result?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have not yet received the result of the court of inquiry in this case.

PRISONERS (ALLEGED BEATING).

4.0 P.M.

Captain W. BENN: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary whether, in the case of the trial of two men in Limerick, the Judge-Advocate stated that there was no doubt that the prisoners had been beaten; whether anyone has been punished for this action, or any general order issued forbidding the maltreatment of prisoners?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: This occurred in the martial law area, and the Commander-in-Chief informs me that he is awaiting a report, which has been called for, regarding the statement of the Judge-Advocate. Perhaps the Noble Lord (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck), who also has a question on this subject, and the hon. and gallant Member will repeat their questions one day later this week.

Captain BENN: Has the right hon. Gentleman issued any order which will cause the discontinuance of this practice?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I do not admit that there is any such practice. If the facts be as stated, it is not enough to attribute it to British military officers who are trying to do their duty to suppress crime by whomsoever committed.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: If the action has not been committed, why does the Judge-Advocate say it has been committed? Do you not believe your own officer?

Captain BENN: I desire to move the Adjournment of the House in order to call attention to this matter, and I wish to ask you, Sir, whether, if I wait until
to-morrow to hear the report, I shall prejudice my claim to move the Adjournment of the House by having lost urgency?

Mr. SPEAKER: No; I think, in view of the answer which has been given saying that the report has been called for, the hon. and gallant Member will not lose his opportunity, if he defer that proposal until to-morrow. Perhaps it would be better to make it Wednesday, to make sure.

Captain W. BENN: Then I beg to give notice that I shall repeat this question to-morrow, when, presumably, the report will have been received.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I cannot say.

Oral Answers to Questions — WHEAT COMMISSION.

Major BARNES: 38.
asked the Prime Minister the nature and extent of the operations in which the Wheat Commission is still engaged; whether it is still purchasing wheat; if not, when the Commission made its last purchase; whether the wheat purchased has been disposed of; and, if not, how much wheat is still in the hands of the Commission?

Mr. BALDWIN: I have been asked to reply. The Wheat Commission is now engaged in liquidating its existing stocks, pending conclusion of the arrangement with the grain trade and milling industry, by which responsibility will be transferred from the Royal Commission to private enterprise. The Royal Commission has made no purchases since 21st March, and if, as is confidently hoped, arrangements for decontrol can be successfully accomplished, no further purchases will be made. The Commission's stocks of wheat and flour, including parcels afloat and unshipped, are approximately 470,000 tons.

Major BARNES: Is the Wheat Commission also engaged in liquefying its profits by handing them over to British millers?

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL ARMAMENTS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 39.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the unanimous passing in the United States Senate of the Amendment of Senator Borah authorising and requesting the
President to invite the Government of Japan and His Majesty's Government to consider the mutual limitation of naval armaments; whether he will consider inviting Parliament to pass a Resolution in similar terms; and, in the meantime, if he will give directions for the cessation of expenditure on new construction for His Majesty's Navy until such time as the result of the action of the United States Senate is apparent?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. I have observed the proceedings in the United States Senate. We have not yet received an invitation from the President.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I have an answer to the second part of the question—whether it is advisable to pass a similar Resolution? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] May I have an answer to the third part, as to new construction?

The PRIME MINISTER: Everything will depend, of course, on whether this Resolution be put into operation.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In view of the strength of our naval position cannot we afford to lead the way in stopping construction?

Viscount CURZON: Is it not a fact that no part of Senator Borah's Resolution refers to ships now under construction?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is so.

Oral Answers to Questions — SALE OF CHOCOLATES.

Viscount CURZON: 40.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is still intended to prohibit the sale of chocolates after 8 p.m.; and whether some relaxation of this War restriction can now be safely considered, in view of the intense desire of the country for a general relaxation of all such War restrictions?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The restriction referred to is now in force under the Shops (Early Closing) Act of last Session, and I have no power under that Act to relax it.

Viscount CURZON: Is he aware it has recently been decided that where a machine is provided they can be had at
any time, and will he take steps to see that the law is equally administered all round?

Mr. SHORTT: I am aware of that.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUPEEME WAR COUNCIL (CAPTAIN P. WRIGHT).

Viscount CURZON: 41.
asked the Prime Minister whether Captain P. Wright, author of the book recently published at the Supreme War Council, was summarily dismissed from the Council; and, if so, when?

The PRIME MINISTER: There was no summary dismissal, but Captain Wright's services in connection with the Supreme War Council came to an end on the 9th April, 1918.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRUSTS AND COMBINES.

Mr. CAUTLEY: 42.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is intended to introduce during this Session legislation dealing with trusts and combines; and whether, if a comprehensive measure dealing with all trades is not possible, he will consider the possibility of bringing in a Bill to deal with trusts and combines in the retail and distribution trades?

Mr. BALDWIN: It will not be possible to introduce legislation of the kind in question during the present Session.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONSULAR FEES.

Sir C. YATE: 53.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he can now state what increase has been decided on in the consular fees levied by British consuls abroad so as to place those fees on an equality with those levied by foreign consuls in this country?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): A revised table of consular fees has now been approved, under which the great majority of fees will be raised by amounts varying from 50 per cent. to 100 per cent. In addition, it has been decided to levy, for an experimental period of one year, a
surtax of 25 per cent. on all the fees. A revised table bringing these changes into operation will be issued shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURAL WAGES BOARDS.

Major HOWARD: 54.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can give the names and addresses of the members of the Central Wages Board and of the District Wages Boards who are engaged as agricultural labourers or have been engaged continuously as such for more than a year; and will he state how and by whom members are appointed to these boards?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: As the answer is a lengthy one, I propose to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the answer:

As far as the information at present at my disposal goes the following representatives of workers on the Agricultural Wages Board are, or have been at some time, employed as agricultural workers:—

Mr. R. B. Walker, 72, Acton Street, Gray's Inn Road.
Mr. G. Craven, Boston Road, Kirton, Lincs.
Mr. George Edwards, M.P., O.B.E., 7, Lichfield Street, Queen's Road, Fakenham, Norfolk.
Mr. J. T. Gurd, Holdenhurst, Christchurch, Hants.
Mr. G. E. Hewitt, Waterloo Place, Horsham St. Faith, Norfolk.
Mr. T. C. Higdon, Burston, Diss, Norfolk.
Mr. Thomas Lovell, 20, Victoria Terrace, Alcombe, near Minehead, Somerset.
Mr. G. Nicholls, O.B.E., 162, Lincoln Road, Peterborough.
Mr. Haman Porter, Weston-on-the-Green, Bicester, Oxon.

I cannot, without extended inquiry, give particulars of the 320 representatives of workers on the various District Wages Committees, but I understand that the large majority are, or have been, employed as agricultural workers. By Regulations made under the Corn Production Act the Agricultural Wages Board consists of seven "appointed" members (including the Chairman and deputy-Chairman) appointed by
me, 16 representatives of employers, of whom 13 are elected by the National Farmers' Union (one being representative of Welsh farmers), one is elected by the Welsh Farmers' Union, and two are nominated by me, and of 16 representatives of workers, of whom nine are elected by the National Union of Agricultural Workers, five are elected by the Workers' Union, and two are nominated by me. The "appointed" members of District Wages Committees are appointed by me, and the representative members are appointed by the Wages Board from among persons nominated by employers' and workers' organisations respectively.

Oral Answers to Questions — SMALL-HOLDING COLONY, HEATH HILL.

Mr. LLOYD: 55.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what loss has been incurred on the Heath Hill small-holding colony since the Board took it over in April, 1918; what is the present position of this undertaking; and whether steps have been taken to put it on a sound basis and the staff largely reduced?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: As stated in the Ministry's Report recently presented to Parliament (Command Paper 1184, of 1921), the accounts of the Settlement in question showed a total loss on estate and farming accounts of £7,344 18s. 6d. up to 31st March, 1920. The complete balance-sheet up to 31st March last is now in course of preparation, but is not yet completed. Steps have been taken to divide the whole of the property into small-holdings. The Central Farm will disappear and the director's appointment will terminate as from Michaelmas next.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is it not a fact that many of these holdings were considered much too small to be economic, considering the quality of the land and the cost?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: That point has not been brought to my notice. I will inquire into it.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURAL ADMINISTRATION, SHROPSHIRE.

Mr. LLOYD: 56.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Shropshire
County Council lately appointed a special committee to consider agricultural administration within the county; that this committee reported that, in their opinion, there was a total of 34 officials, who were more or less employed by the Ministry of Agriculture in Shropshire, whose services have produced no benefits to the county, and that their services should be dispensed with; and will he, in the interests of economy, take steps to alter this unsatisfactory state of affairs?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I cannot accept the statement that there are 34 officials of the Ministry more or less employed in Shropshire, or that the services of those officials who have visited that country have produced no benefits, but I am taking steps in connection with the recent Treasury Circular, to see that every possible reduction is made in the outdoor as well as the indoor staff of the Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — CANADIAN CATTLE EMBARGO (ROYAL COMMISSION).

Mr. HURD: 57.
asked the Minister of Agriculture when the Royal Commission on the cattle embargo will begin its sittings, and whether counsel will be permitted to appear?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am informed that the Royal Commission on the Importation of store cattle held its first sitting this morning. The Commission have decided that parties may, if they so desire, have the assistance of counsel, but only subject to the direction of the Commission.

Oral Answers to Questions — OFFICE OF WORKS (WHITE LEAD).

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: 58.
asked the hon. Member for the Pollok Division of Glasgow as representing the First Commissioner of Works, in view of the fact that the prohibition of the use of white lead in painting is one of the items on the Agenda of the Third International Labour Conference to be held at Geneva in October, whether any special practice prevails in His Majesty's Office of Works with regard to the use of white lead compounds in painting: if so, what that practice is; and whether any condition
relating to the use of white lead is contained in Government contracts for painting work?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. GILMOUR (for the First Commissioner of Works): The practice of the Office of Works for the last 14 years has been to use paints with a non-poisonous zinc base, instead of a white lead base, and all contracts involving painting stipulate that no paint must contain more than 5 per cent. of soluble lead.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE.

Captain TERRELL: 63.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the vacancies competed for in the examinations for entrance into the Civil Service are restricted so far as possible in view of the public hope of drastic retrenchment in Government expenditure and bureaucratic administration?

Mr. YOUNG: Yes, Sir. The permanent establishments of Government Departments are kept constantly under review, and the vacancies therein open to competition are strictly limited to the number of posts required to be filled on a permanent basis.

Captain TERRELL: 64.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the average length of a day's work performed by the various grades of the Civil Service and indicate, in each case, what is the allowance for meals?

Mr. YOUNG: The minimum hours worked per day by permanent ranks of the general clerical and administrative staffs of London headquarter offices is seven, with an interval of from three-quarters of an hour to one hour for lunch. There is no stated tea interval. The minimum day's work of other grades varies very frequently, and in all cases the minimum period is frequently exceeded without extra payment.

Captain TERRELL: Would it be possible for civil servants to work 8 hours a day, and thereby reduce the number of civil servants now employed in Government Departments?

Mr. YOUNG: If they work 8 hours a day, of course, it would be possible to reduce the number of officials employed, but
my hon. and gallant Friend will understand that it would quite upset the present basis of employment.

Mr. W. THORNE: Would any one be willing to be penned up in an office 8 hours a day?

Mr. YOUNG: I know nobody willing to work more hours than he thinks he ought to.

Mr. J. BUTCHER: this reduction of hours of duty taken place since the increase of salaries?

Mr. YOUNG: certainly not.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

TEACHERS' SALARIES, MANCHESTER.

Lieut.-Colonel HURST: 65.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he has perused the memorial presented to him on the 13th May on behalf of 3,450 teachers serving in the elementary schools of Manchester, soliciting the confirmation by him of the recommendation by the local education authority that Scale IV be adopted for teachers' salaries in that area; and when he will give his decision on this question?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis): My right hon. Friend has read the memorial to which the hon. and gallant Member refers. He hopes before long to be in a position to make a statement on this and other points arising in connection with the Report of the Burnham Committee.

TEACHERS' PENSIONS.

Lieut.-Colonel HURST: 66.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Board of Education has alleged that service in schools transferred by sale to local education authorities is not pensionable by reason of such schools thereby becoming new schools; whether he is aware that this allegation is wholly contrary to the past practice of the Board, particularly in its directions as to the admission registers of Whalley Range High School; if he has consulted the Law Officers of the Crown on the question; and, if not, whether he will obtain their opinion and review this matter in the interests of the large number of teachers concerned?

Mr. H. LEWIS: The question whether a school opened by a local education authority can be regarded as identical with a school previously existing under other management in the same premises is a question which can only be determined by looking at all the facts of a particular case, but primâ facie a school opened by a local education authority is none the less a new school because the authority have acquired by purchase premises in which a school was previously conducted. In reply to the second part of the question, my right hon. Friend is aware of the facts as to Whalley Range High School. The directions given in that case were the ordinary directions based on considerations of administrative and statistical convenience, and he cannot regard them as determining the new question whether a school is to be treated as a new school for the purpose of the School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1918. In reply to the third part of the question, my right hon. Friend has not consulted the Law Officers of the Crown, and he does not think any advantage would be gained by doing so, because each case must be considered separately in relation to the relevant facts of that case, and an opinion given on one case would be of little value in other cases in which the facts were different.

Mr. RAWLINSON: As this question involves a very large number of schools, will the President of the Board receive a deputation to discuss the very novel point of law raised? So far the Board have declined to see anybody.

Mr. LEWIS: I will communicate to my right hon. Friends the desire expressed by the hon. Member, but it is obvious that, if one deputation is received, deputations from others concerned in the same matter will also have to be received.

Oral Answers to Questions — VILLAGE TELEPHONES.

Captain TERRELL: 71.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that residents in the villages are complaining of the lack of telephonic facilities; whether to meet this great and growing need he will consider the installation of a public telephone at every village post office; and whether, by thus extending its operations on reasonable terms, the Post Office could obtain a very large amount
of extra telephone business of a remunerative nature which would help to meet the loss on the existing system?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER - GENERAL (Mr. H. Pike Pease): My right hon. Friend is investigating the scope for further telephone development in villages. But the revenue collected at the rural call offices which have been opened in recent years is relatively small, and, in view of the considerable expense involved in providing and maintaining them, I am afraid that a guarantee would usually have to be required.

Captain TERRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that agriculture, which is one of the largest industries in the country, is seriously hampered by not having telephones in all villages, and will the Postmaster-General consider the question from that point of view?

Mr. PEASE: The Postmaster-General is considering that very point at the moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST-WAR DISABILITY PENSIONS.

Major Sir B. FALLE: 77.
asked the Minister of Pensions when the post-War disability scale of pensions will be made public and begin to be put into operation?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Devonport on the 25th instant, of which I am sending him a copy.

Sir B. FALLE: Can the hon. Gentleman give me the effect of—

Major TRYON: The chief point is that it is a matter affecting Service Departments under the Act passed last year.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

PAYMASTER-LIEUTENANTS.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 78.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can give the number of pay-master-lieutenants promoted from writers now borne and also the number of com-
missioned and warrant writers borne on 1st October, 1918, and 31st March, 1921, respectively?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): The number of paymaster-lieutenants promoted from writers now on the active list is 10. The number of commissioned and warrant writers borne on 1st October, 1918, and 31st March, 1921, was as follows:



1st Oct., 1918.
31st March, 1921.


Commissioned writers
10
18


Warrant writers
78
50

JUNIOR ACCOUNTANT OFFICERS.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 79.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to A.W.O. 592/1921, dealing with the India forest service; whether he can give some further particulars regarding the statement made therein containing the words owing to shortage of junior accountant officers; whether he is aware that communications have passed between Admiralty officials as late as last month in which the information is conveyed that there is a shortage of junior accountant officers; and can he explain how this shortage has arisen?

Mr. AMERY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, there is at present on the basis of the pre-War distribution of duties a considerable surplus of senior accountant officers and some deficiency of junior officers, caused partly by reduced requirements after the War and partly by the improved arrangements for promotion in the branch. There is, however, an appreciable net surplus, and while this exists the situation is being met by the employment of senior officers on duties which would normally be performed by junior officers, this being the most economical, and obviously the best arrangement in the circumstances.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it not a fact that there was a shortage of junior accountant officers?

Mr. AMERY: The duties are being performed by senior officers.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: But did not the right hon. Gentleman state the other day, in answer to my question, that there was such a shortage?

Mr. AMERY: That question was in relation to another point.

CURRENCY, EAST AFRICA.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 80.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet any statement to make on the East African currency question?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill): As I informed my hon. and gallant Friend on the 12th April, I have considered to the best of my ability, and with the assistance of my advisers, the currency question in Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika, and I am now in a position to make a statement on the question as a whole.
The present position is the result of the scheme embodied, as far as Kenya and Uganda are concerned, in the East Africa and Uganda Order in Council of the 26th April, 1920. That scheme was prepared at a time when the Indian rupee had risen in exchange value to about 2s. 9d., and it was decided to substitute for the Indian currency a local currency based on the florin at 2s. sterling, at which value the Indian rupee would be current until it could be replaced. Existing contracts expressed in rupees were to be interpreted in terms of the new florin. Various representations have been received since the beginning of the year on behalf of the different interests in East Africa, some urging that a change should be made, particularly in view of the fall in the exchange value of the Indian rupee, and others urging that no alteration should be made.
After taking these various expressions of opinion into consideration, I have decided to maintain the original scheme in its essential features, but with the modification that, as recommended by the Currency Committee appointed in Kenya in February, 1921, the standard coin will be, not a florin, but a shilling, in order to prevent too abrupt fluctuations in local values, and that rupee contracts, instead of being construed at the rate of one florin to one rupee, will be construed at the rate of two shillings to one rupee. Pending the supply of the new shilling currency, which will be expedited as much as possible, steps are being taken to redeem the Indian rupee coin now current in Kenya and Uganda with the
florin and other local currency now available, during a limited period, after which the Indian coin will be demonetised. Formal notices on this point will be published locally. The extension of the new arrangements to the Tanganyika Territory will be effected as soon as possible.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether the wages paid to natives in East Africa, which used to be so many rupees a month, are now twice as many shillings per month, or are they being reduced from rupees to shillings, without any increase in the number of shillings paid; and whether there is any actual increase in the wages paid to natives?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think my hon. and gallant Friend has not fully comprehended the effect of the answer which I have just given. No doubt that is due to the fact that this is a very complicated matter, which he has just heard for the first time; but I hope that he will study it with attention, and then he will see what the bearing of it is between the various complicated questions.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether this change in the currency does not mean a change in the purchasing power of the wages of the East African natives, and that their earnings are thereby reduced?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir, it means that the purchasing power of those wages is maintained, and maintained at the difference between a 2s. florin and a 1s. 3d. rupee, which is the cause of much heart-burning on the part of the settlers.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: In order that we may study the right hon. Gentleman's reply, as he suggests, may we understand whether the shilling is going to be divided into 12 pence or 100 cents; whether the original proposal was that the florin should be divided into 100 cents; and what is the subsidiary coin below 1s. that it is proposed to introduce in these territories?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The intention is to make the shilling the half-florin.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The question is, what will the coin be which is smaller than the shilling? Will it be the penny or the cent. and will it be 100 cents to the shilling or 100 cents to the florin?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think I must ask for notice of the details of the currency question, but the decision to which I have come has been to retain the existing exchange value of the rupee at two shillings, as against saying that it should be dropped to the pre-War value, and to ease the situation of the local currency by creating a new shilling currency, and taking the shilling as a basic value.

Colonel Sir C. YATE: Does that mean that the Indian currency will be entirely eliminated in East Africa?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is intended to assimilate the currency to the British type.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Is there any reason why this shilling should not be the ordinary shilling we use in this country, so that it should be current here and in Cape Town.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE CONVENTIONS (DIVISION).

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I desire, Mr. Speaker, to bring to your notice that in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Division that took place in the House on Friday last, on the Motion of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Gorbals Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes), the figures are given as 69 and 109. These were the figures announced at the Table, but there are in the one case only 107, instead of 109, names given in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. MILLS: How many were members of the Government?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: There were 69 on the other side, so that the Tellers were included in the figures for the Government, and not included in the figures against the Government.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid there is sometimes a slight discrepancy between the figures given by the Tellers and the names appearing in the OFFICIAL REPORT. That can only be corrected if the Tellers agree that they have made an error. We are bound to take the arithmetic of the Tellers when they come to the Table. That is the authority on which the Chair must act, until, at any rate, the Tellers come and ask that the figures may be corrected.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: May an instruction be given to whoever checks this list of Members to go over the list again and see if any names have been omitted?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Tellers are the persons responsible to the House for the figures.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On the question of business, may I ask the Leader of the House—

Mr. SPEAKER: It is usual for some-body on another Bench to ask questions with regard to business.

Mr. CLYNES: May I ask the Leader of the House whether there is any change to be announced in the order of business?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It will be necessary, under the Emergency Powers

Act, for the House to approve of the continuance of the Emergency Powers Regulations. This must be done during the week, and I propose to ask the House to take the discussion, if time permit, to-morrow, after the Report Stage of the Financial Resolution of the Safeguarding of Industries Bill, and, if time should not permit to-morrow, then on Wednesday, after the discussion of the Supplementary Estimates for Members' Expenses.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Proceedings on Consideration of the Housing Bill, as amended, and of the Committees on Housing (Scotland) [Grants], Overseas Trade [Credits and Insurances], and Finance [Consolidated Fund] be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

The House divided: Ayes, 216; Noes, 50.

Division No. 122.]
AYES.
[4.8 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Cope, Major William
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hills, Major John Waller


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Hinds, John


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hoare, Lieut-Colonel Sir S. J. G.


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy


Astor, Viscountess
Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)


Atkey, A. R.
Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Hopkins, John W. W.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Hurd, Percy A.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.


Barlow, Sir Montague
Evans, Ernest
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Falcon, Captain Michael
Jesson, C.


Barnston, Major Harry
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Jodrell, Neville Paul


Barrand, A. R.
Farquharson, Major A. C.
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Fell, Sir Arthur
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.
Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr


Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Bethell, Sir John Henry
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)


Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)


Blair, Sir Reginald
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Camb'dge)
Lindsay, William Arthur


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Gee, Captain Robert
Lloyd, George Butler


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.


Bowles, Colonel H. F.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Gilbert, James Daniel
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Glyn, Major Ralph
M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray


Brown, T. W. (Down, North)
Greene, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Greer, Harry
McMicking, Major Gilbert


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Greig, Colonel James William
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.


Butcher, Sir John George
Gretton, Colonel John
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Cautley, Henry Strother
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Macquisten, F. A.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)
Mitchell, William Lane


Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Morden, Col. W. Grant


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Harmsworth, Sir R. L. (Caithness)
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Mosley, Oswald


Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Rankin, Captain James Stuart
Waddington, R.


Murchison, C. K.
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Wallace, J.


Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
Remnant, Sir James
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Murray, William (Dumfries)
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Neal, Arthur
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Waring, Major Walter


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Nield, Sir Herbert
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.
Shaw, Capt. William T. (Forfar)
Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castie-on-T.)
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Parker, James
Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


Pearce, Sir William
Smithers, Sir Alfred W.
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Wise, Frederick


Percy, Charles (Tynemouth)
Steel, Major S. Strang
Wolmer, Viscount


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Stevens, Marshall
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Perkins, Walter Frank
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Philipps, Gen. Sir I. (Southampton)
Sutherland, Sir William
Woolcock, William James U.


Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)
Taylor, J.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Pilditch, Sir Philip
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Polson, Sir Thomas A.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Pratt, John William
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)



Purchase, H. G.
Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Raeburn, Sir William H.
Tryon, Major George Clement
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.




McCurdy.


NOES.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, G. H.
Royce, William Stapleton


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Sexton, James


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Sitch, Charles H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kennedy, Thomas
Spoor, B. G.


Briant, Frank
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Cairns, John
Kenyon, Barnet
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Cape, Thomas
Kiley, James Daniel
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lawson, John James
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Galbraith, Samuel
Lunn, William
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Gillis, William
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Glanville, Harold James
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Mills, John Edmund
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Grundy, T. W.
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Newbould, Alfred Ernest



Hallas, Eldred
Redmond, Captain William Archer
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hayward, Evan
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. Wignall and Mr. Waterson.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Rose, Frank H.

EMERGENCY POWERS ACT, 1920.

COAL INDUSTRY DISPUTE.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: (at the Bar of the House): A Message from the King, signed by his own hand.

Mr. SPEAKER: read the Royal Message (all the Members of the House being uncovered) as followeth:

GEORGE R.I.

The continued cessation of work in coal mines on the 27th day of May, 1921, having constituted, in the opinion of His Majesty, a state of emergency within the meaning of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, His Majesty has deemed it proper, by Proclamation made in pursuance of the said Act, and dated the 27th day of May, 1921, to declare that a state of emergency exists.

Ordered, "That His Majesty's Most Gracious Message be taken into consideration To-morrow."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

BILLS REPORTED.

Thames Deep-Water Wharf and Railways Bill,

Reported [Preamble not proved]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Southampton Corporation Water Bill,

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Sir MALCOLM SMITH, for the County of Orkney and Shetland.

Orders of the Day — RAILWAYS BILL.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [26th May] "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Which Amendment was, to leave out from the word "That "to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
this House cannot assent to the Second Reading of a Bill which not only fails to provide for the public ownership and control of the railways, but would prejudice the future acquisition of the railways by the State on a fair and economic basis, which provides for the payment to the railway companies of a sum far in excess of the amount due to them in consequence of temporary State control, and which, repealing the statutory limitation imposed upon railway rates, vests in a non-elected body the arbitrary power of fixing those rates."—[Mr. Clynes.]

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

Mr. G. LAMBERT: The apathy with which this Bill is regarded in the country and the House is, to me, very deplorable. This is a Measure fraught with very grave moment to the future of the country. So far, the Debates have been very languid, and very little interest seems to be taken in this extraordinarily important Measure. This Bill deals with the future of the railways and railway rates, and when I realise what the railway rates were in 1913 pre-War, and what they are to-day under the new system. I am really quite astonished that there has been so little notice taken of these proposals. According to a Table furnished by the Minister of Transport, in January last the pre-War receipts for passengers on the railways were £44,000,000; for parcels and goods, £78,000,000; and from other sources, £13,000,000. That is a total receipts before the War of £135,000,000 a year. Under the new system the new passenger rates provide £105,000,000; parcels and goods, £188,000,000; and other sources, £25,000,000, making a total of £318,000,000 a year. There is an increase over pre-War rates for passengers and traders of no less than £183,000,000 a year. In other words, where the public were paying £1 in 1913, to-day they are paying £2 10s.,
and the service is infinitely worse, pilfering was never so rampant, and breakages were never so great.
We must realise that this is a heavy tax not only upon industry but upon almost every individual user of any commodity in this country. There are 40,000,000 people in Great Britain, and they are paying something like £4 10s. more per annum each in railway rates than they were paying before the War, and that is a considerable sum in a family. The point I propose to concentrate upon is whether the rates under, this Bill will be reduced. Will there be a reduction of the present very high railway rates? I must confess that I cannot see any evidence of it. The Minister of Transport suggested that there might be some reduction through amalgamation, and I think he put it at £25,000,000 a year. That, however, is a fleabite compared with the £183,000,000 the rates have gone up since 1913. The railways are placed to-day, or will be placed under this Bill, in a very privileged position. The net receipts in 1913 were the highest in the history of the railway companies, and these are to be guaranteed. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] At any rate, I read the Bill in that way, and this is what Clause 52 provides:
The charges to be fixed in the first instance for each amalgamated company shall be such as will, in the opinion of the rates tribunal, so far as practicable yield, with efficient and economical working and management, an annual net revenue (hereinafter referred to as the standard revenue) equivalent to the aggregate net revenues in the year nineteen hundred and thirteen of the constituent companies and the subsidiary companies absorbed by the amalgamated company.
That is to say, this tribunal is directed to fix the railway rates so that the railway companies shall have a net revenue not less than the year 1913, and surely that is quite clear. I am here to-day, not as a railway shareholder or as one having anything to do with railway companies, but simply as a member of the public, and they have to be protected in this matter. This Bill reverses all previous practice in dealing with the railway companies. The rates of the railways after four years of inquiry were fixed by the Act of 1894, and the onus is laid upon the railway companies to prove the reasonableness of any excess charge they make. Now we have three members of a tribunal who are to decide as to whether the rates
are reasonable or not, and upon whom is laid a special statutory power to see that the rates are high enough to secure the companies their 1913 revenue.
Who are the members of this tribunal? One of them has to be acquainted with commerce, another has to be acquainted with the railways, and the third brings in the lawyer, and the lawyer must be the chairman. They are to fix the rates, having regard to Clause 52, and having regard to the efficient and economical working of the railways. I ask the House what possible knowledge can this tribunal, or, at any rate, what knowledge can the commercial gentleman and the lawyer have of the efficient and economical working of the railways. They are to be the judges. They are to fix the rates, and it is to them that the public have to look for protection, and to them only. They have no other protection. I had the honour of sitting on some of these railway committees a great many years ago, and the public in these matters is a kind of unorganised chaotic mass of uninformed people. On the other side there are very skilled railwaymen watching every movement on the board in this House. Where are the public to-day? They are not represented here. If the public were here they would not have the knowledge which these skilled railway officials possess. I have sat on railway committees, and I have seen the railway managers come down armed with financial information collected by their staff, and it is a very skilled and efficient staff, and they bring chapter and verse, but what protection has the public? They have not this skilled staff and all these accounts and checks and the rest of it. Before the War I remember that we got the Board of Trade and the Board of Agriculture to represent the agriculturists to inquire into the reasonableness of the railway rates, and then agriculturists and traders were found to be very impotent. To-day the whole thing is changed, and this tribunal is the sole protection for the public in this vital matter of inland transport.
The point which is causing me a good deal of apprehension is how industry is to recover in this country. I am not speaking in the least antagonistic to the railways, but I am speaking as one who sees and visualises the situation outside as being one fraught with extreme and extraordinary gravity. I say that railway
rates ought to come down, and must come down, if industry is to recover. Let us just visualise the situation for the moment. We had the Treasury coming down here not long ago and saying the taxpayer will not pay more than £950,000,000 next year, and that we must have a great reduction of expenditure. "We have unemployed to-day without the miners 1,750,000. We have paid out in one week £1,800,000 in unemployment, benefit, that is, nearly £2,000,000, or nearly £100,000,000 a year." How long can this go on? That is one of the reasons why I say this Railway Bill should be very carefully examined, because it is essential that nothing should be done here which will hamper trade or prevent it recovering in this country. In this Bill there is no incentive to the railway companies to economise and put forth their best. This Rates Tribunal is to see, so far as they can, that the net receipts of 1913 are maintained. Practically you put the railways in the position of a Government Department. If a Government Department is inefficient, it still goes on, but if a private individual is inefficient, he goes down. I want fair play to the shareholders. We know that the shareholders put up their money, and that without their money the railways could not have been built, but you cannot put railway shareholders in a privileged position as compared with other capitalists in the country. If other capitalists do not use their property properly, they lose it, and you have no right to guarantee the property of the railway shareholders if they do not do their duty and put their best leg foremost.
With regard to the cost of living, the railways are a very important matter. Nearly everything we consume comes by railway. Today, in my own county of Devonshire, it is very difficult to get produce from Devonshire to London. The railway rates kill it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) made an admirable speech the other day, but may I say to him, very respectfully, that he and his friends, in chasing this hare of nationalisation, are forgetting the public? In this matter I am thinking more of the workers than I am of the capitalists. This is a question of the workers. If the workers have to pay more for their food, they will suffer. The rich people are not going to suffer if food goes up; they will get enough. I can
meet this argument of nationalisation at any time and am prepared to meet it. Our great concern should be how the population is to be maintained in its present standard of comfort. Have we any guarantee that the present railway rates will not be increased after the 18 months allowed in the Bill? Do you imagine that the trade of this country can stand an increase on the £183,000,000 put on since the War?

Mr. MARRIOTT: It cannot.

Mr. LAMBERT: But have we any guarantee at all that this tribunal will not increase rates? Surely that is a very important matter to the British public, to the travelling public, and also to those traders who use the railway. This is not a matter of luxury. The luxury travelling can be put on one side, it is probably a matter of £1,000,000; but you run into hundreds of millions to be paid by the traders and the general public in the general course of their business. The Minister of Transport said he hoped that great economies would be effected by what he called statistics. Statistics, he said, were the pillar of the Bill. What is to prevent the railway companies, or what has there been, from keeping statistics?

Sir F. BANBURY: We have plenty of them.

Mr. LAMBERT: I am sure of it. They cost a great deal of money. My right hon. Friend says statistics are the pillar of the Bill—one of the pillars of the Bill. By the keeping of these statistics are we going to get a reduction of railway rates? That is the only point I am thinking about. This Bill is very beautifully balanced. I must not use the term "guaranteed rates,"but the railways, according to the Bill, are to get something very near it, their pre-War net receipts. The railway rates are to be fixed by this tribunal of a commercial gentleman, railwayman, and the lawyer. The wages are to be fixed by a National Board. Everything is to be beautifully balanced; but will it work? I am very doubtful of these beautifully balanced Parliamentary arrangements. The Minister of Transport has turned himself, in the construction of this Bill, into a kind of railway Blondin, though his figure does not look like tight-rope walking. It is a delicately equipoised arrangement. However, we have had a little
experience of Acts like this, beautiful Acts of Parliament. There was a Housing Act of Parliament. It looked beautiful on paper. How has it worked out in practice? It is stated in this memorandum that the Bill will enable railways to effect economies long desired. Why have not the railways effected them before? They have had the liberty. Why must we wait for a Railway Bill to effect economies long desired by the railway directors and the management? Surely it is not necessary to have a Bill to do it. I say to those gentlemen who have made this bargain with the Government, the railway directors, that they should be very careful about this. By and by traders will wake up, and if rates do not drastically come down there will be an infuriated agitation against railways. I think my right hon. Friend said he was rather regretful that workers had not been represented on the boards of directors. After listening very carefully to this discussion, I would say that if the National Union of Railwaymen are to go upon the board to represent one particular interest, they are better off; but if they are to go there to utilise their experience as railway employs, in order to increase the general efficiency of the industry, it would do a great deal of good, and I cannot help thinking, when I see the list of railway directors, that it would have been far better if the railway companies had selected some of their own employés as directors. Of course, I would never say that they should have selected fewer Members of Parliament.
Let us come to this question of grouping. Why do you want a Bill to enable the railways to group themselves? If they want to do it, let them do it voluntarily. The voluntary principle is the mainspring of our industry and of our prosperity. I do not believe for a moment in this compulsory grouping. What does Parliament know about it? The railway companies must be judges of their own business. If they want to group themselves, let them do it. I live in the South of England, and I have a special grievance in the matter. We have got one railway serving the South-west of England which is very progressive, the Great Western Railway, and I say, "All honour to them! "But we have another, the South Western.

Mr. GRITTEN: Look at the North Eastern!

Mr. LAMBERT: I have not got experience of the North Eastern, but the South Western Railway—well, I do not think I need say much more. It was at one time very up-to-date and progressive. To-day it is very different indeed. The Great Western Railway Company can run trains to Exeter, 175 miles, in an hour's less time. I do not know whether there are any directors of the South Western Railway here. If so, I would like them to ride in one of their own lavatory compartments from London to Plymouth on a hot summer day. The windows are hermetically sealed. When it comes to the question of convenience of the public living in outlying districts, as I do, there is no convenience at all. Here we have these railways, the South Western, the South Eastern, and the Brighton, all of them serving the South and the West of England, to be grouped. We shall have stereotyped sluggishness in the South. I object to it, very much. Let me take another question. When this Bill passes, I understand the Ministry of Transport is still to go on.

Mr. GRITTEN: Get rid of it!

Mr. LAMBERT: It is still to go on. The Minister of Transport will be leaving, to our great regret. [Laughter.] Oh, yes, I have great respect for my right hon. Friend. He is a skilled railwayman. The Ministry of Transport is to go on, and who will succeed him there? Some politician. What does a politician know about railways? That is the worst of bringing these matters of industry under the purview of this House. I am a very strong individualist. This country was built up on individualism, energy, and initiative. Are we to have a politician, like we have with the Post Office, to control the railways?

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: You controlled the Admiralty, did you not?

Mr. LAMBERT: My hon. Friend said I controlled the Admiralty. As a matter of fact I was one of the members of the Board of Admiralty. Does he really compare a fighting force, which must be under the control of the Crown, with this industry? Let him remember, too, that were it not for industry the money could not be found for the Admiralty. Let those gentlemen who want nationali-
sation show me a single nationalised railway system in the whole world equal to our own, even to-day. [Interruption.] Bring it along, bring your evidence. I want to learn about these matters. If you can show me any—

Mr. MILLS: The hon. Gentleman wants a comparison as to the cost of travelling. I would refer him to the cost of travelling on the Belgian State railways.

Mr. LAMBERT: Will my hon. Friend bring that comparison down to the House? Let him get on this Committee and prove that the Belgian or French, or any other nationalised, railways are as efficient and as cheap as railways managed by individual enterprise.

Mr. J. JONES: That will be easily done.

Mr. LAMBERT: It is a matter on which there will be a difference of opinion. I am anxious about the workers of the country, because the workers will suffer if a Bill such as this is allowed to go on and the railway rates are kept up. I am not one of those who say that this Bill should pass because the railways have got a great claim against the State. Under the Bill £60,000,000, less Income Tax, £51,000,000 actually, is to be paid. This is not a question of £60,000,000 this year, with me. It is a question of the £183,000,000 a year that has been put on to the railway rates since the War began, and which I do not believe the industry of this country can stand. I believe that the principle underlying this Bill is wrong. Why should we not go back to the system which worked in 1894 and put the onus of proof of any increase of charge upon the railway companies? This Bill does not do that. It simply leaves the railway companies—well-organised, disciplined and efficient—against the traders, who are chaotic, ill-organised and inefficient in presenting their case to these three Commissioners. I would put the responsibility upon the railways themselves. Give them all freedom of management, give them an opportunity of recovery, but say to them that year by year these rates have got to come down. They must come down if this country is again to recover its position. I object very strongly to the principle which underlies the Bill that the onus of proof of the reasonableness of rates must be on the
trader and not on the railway. I believe that if this Bill is to do any good it must be hatched again in Committee, and hatched differently; its ground-work is wrong. I am speaking solely as one who is attempting to represent the great British public, believing that their interest is the cheapest possible railway facilities for both goods and passengers. I hope that when the Bill goes to the Committee the Members of the Committee will go to that body with the fixed idea that the railways exist for the community, and not the community for the railways.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): There are certain remarks in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) with which it is not quite easy to agree, but there were at least two remarks with which I, at any rate, cordially agree. One was his statement that this Bill is certain to go to a Committee, which means, I take it, that he has no doubt at all as to the result of the Debate and of the Division, if Division there be, on the Second Reading. The other was that this Bill is concerned with what he called the vital matter of inland transport. No one who has thought about the matter and I hope it is not an intrusion for Members who have not the good fortune to be directors of railway companies to intervene in this Debate—no one who has thought at all about the matter can fail to come to that conclusion. We are dealing in this Bill, rightly or wrongly, with a problem which is of profound importance to the trade, the industry, and the whole future welfare of this country. Although we are dealing with it, as things now stand, after the "War, the problem is not a post-War problem. It is not a problem which the War has made for us. It is essentially a pre-War problem, although we are resuming it after the War, with the experience, and, it may be, subject to certain modifications, produced by the period of War itself. What was the problem? You go back, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport went back in his speech on Thursday, to the position in the year 1913 or the early part of 1914. I do not want to make one disparaging remark about the railway system of this country, nor about any of those who have
been responsible for its conduct and control. But, whatever the causes may be, you had in this country a railway system of which it was true to say that the cost to the user was relatively high, that the working of the railways was relatively uneconomical, and that the return to-those who were interested as stockholders in the railway companies was relatively low. Side by side with that state of affairs you had this further fact, that the railways, by reason of want of capital and of difficulties in raising capital, had not got it in their power to carry out those alterations and improvements which were necessary, on the one hand, for economy, and, on the other hand, for efficiency.
That was the pre-War condition. It has been modified to some extent, no doubt, by the experience of the War, but that is the problem with which this Bill has to deal. The keynote of the Bill is amalgamation, and the various steps which amalgamation requires and involves. I thought that my right hon. Friend (Mr. Lambert) seemed to take a somewhat gloomy view of the economies which might be expected as a result of the Bill. He referred to the figure of £25,000,000 mentioned by the Minister of Transport, but that is not a figure which is intended to represent the whole of the possible economy. I see from to-day's newspapers that there is, at any rate, one distinguished railway chairman who thinks that that figure was an excessive estimate. I think he puts it rather at something in the neighbourhood of £2,000,000 to £4,000,000. It was never suggested, however, that the figure of £25,000,000 represented the whole of the economies which might be expected when this Bill becomes an Act. There will be, or, at any rate, we hope that there will be, enormous further economies arising from, among other things, the declining cost of everything that is employed. My right hon. Friend also seemed to me to take a rather gloomy view of the Rates Tribunal. He appeared to think that the three members of that tribunal were going to arrive at their decisions by a process of imagination. They will, of course, have evidence before them; they will have information and materials before them; and when my right hon. Friend says, as he did more than once, that the public have no representation, he forgets that it is a part of
the business, and the largest part of the business, of the Ministry of Transport to represent that very public.
The remaining complaint which my right hon. Friend made was that under the Act, when this Bill becomes an Act, there will be no incentive—meaning by that, I suppose, no pecuniary incentive—to the railway companies to effect economies. I should like to join issue with that statement. It seems to reecho a criticism which was made the other day by my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Hills), who compared a certain part of the machinery under this Bill to the machinery of that part of the Finance Act of 1915 which imposed the Excess Profits Duty. I cannot help thinking that my hon. and gallant Friend, who knows that Act of Parliament so well, has inadvertently been a little unfair to this Bill. He was dealing with Clause 53 of the Bill, which makes provisions as to the revenue obtained by an amalgamated company. That revenue is to be the standard revenue—and the standard revenue means an annual net revenue which is equivalent to the aggregate net receipts of the year 1913—increased by two additional allowances which are set out in Sub-section (1) of Clause 52. But, said my hon. and gallant Friend, if the actual revenue of the railway company is found by experience to exceed that standard revenue plus the two additional allowances, then the company is in the position of a trader who, under the Finance Act of 1915, has to hand back to the State a portion of the profits which he has earned. That, however, is not the case at all. Under the Bill, or, as I hope we shall shortly be able to call it, the Act, the whole of the surplus which has been earned by the company will be retained by the company. There is no question of the company's handing back, either to the State on the one hand or to the trader on the other, any part of the revenue which it has in fact acquired. It will have the whole of that revenue, not only arising during a year, but also arising for a period of something like six months afterwards; because, by Sub-section (6) of Clause 53, it is provided that modifications of rates shall have effect only from the 1st July in the year following the last year under review. It follows, therefore, that for a period of 18 months the railway com-
pany may earn and be in possession, and it is not at any time or in any way to be defeated of possession, of the revenue which during that period has been acquired.
The problem which the Rates Tribunal will have to determine will be the problem of what are to be the rates for the future, and what the Bill provides, as I understand it, is that, looking only to the future, and not at all to the past, the Rates Tribunal will provide such a review of the rates as will for the future give to the company two things. These are, first, the standard revenue—that is to say, the revenue based on 1913—and, secondly, an amount equivalent to 20 per cent. of the surplus which the company has been proved to have acquired. As regards the 80 per cent. which it would have acquired if the rates that yielded the surplus were permitted to continue, that 80 per cent. will not be earned. It will not be taken from them, and it will be restored only in an artificial sense to the public, who otherwise would have paid it. There is no question, as there was under the Excess Profits Duty, of handing back to the tax-gatherer or anyone else any part of the profits which have been earned. If experience shows that the railway company earned a surplus revenue over and above the standard revenue, it will be empowered, in a revision of rates for the future, to enjoy the standard revenue plus an amount equivalent to 20 per cent. of that surplus, but not more. I should have thought, with great respect to my right hon. Friend, that that was an incentive to the railway companies to effect economies which would enable them to increase by at least 20 per cent. their standard revenue. I pass from that part of the matter to make one or two observations upon the speech of my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury).

Mr. LAMBERT: Have you finished with me?

Sir G. HEWART: Only for the time being. I pass for the moment to make one or two observations upon the speech of my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury). His speeches are always received with the greatest respect in this House, and for my own part, when I venture to join issue with him upon a matter relating to railway companies, I feel that I am com-
mitting an offence which is almost equivalent to brawling in church. After all, however, perhaps he will allow me to take the view that there are many matters in this Bill upon which we are entitled and indeed bound to form a judgment, although we have not had the special advantage of railway experience and management. The right hon. Baronet was concerned, if I rightly heard his speech, to impute to the Minister of Transport, or if not to him to the Government as a whole, all the ingredients in the serious condition in which the railway companies now find themselves. And accordingly he found, or purported to find, that there was a diametrical opposition between two statements which my right hon. Friend had made. The first was that before the War the condition of the railway companies had been continuously going down, and the second was that the largest net receipts which the companies had ever had were received in the year 1913. There is no essential antagonism between those statements, because unhappily the condition of railway companies and the efficiency of railways depend upon a great many other matters besides the total net receipts. But I will ask the House to observe how the right hon. Baronet dealt with the first proposition. He sought to traverse it in this way. He said that in 1896 the price of railway stocks was higher than it had ever been unless one went back to the year 1845. No doubt that statement is true. But by itself I should have thought it was a statement of a most misleading character. If you look, as I have looked, at the Chart which shows the rise and fall in price of railway stocks for a period of thirty-five years from 1885 to 1920, it is indeed true to say that in 1896 the stocks stood at the highest price of the whole of that period; but if you look at the years from 1896 onwards—a period of twenty-four or twenty-five years—it is no less correct to say that there has been an almost continuous decline, and that is the foundation for the absolutely correct statement of my right hon. Friend.

5.0 P.M.

Sir F. BANBURY: It is quite true that in the years from 1906 to 1913 there was a continuous fall, but it was a fall which was shared by every other good security, including Consols, and was entirely owing to a Radical Government.

Sir G. HEWART: Now the right hon. Baronet suggests a field of controversy into which, on a suitable occasion, I might be prepared to enter. But it would be very unsuitable indeed to enter to-day into the misdeeds, and the consequences of the misdeeds, of a Radical Government. What I am concerned with for the moment is, not the cause, but the fact, and the fact, I gather, is agreed that from 1896 onwards there was a continuous fall in the police of railway stock. But when one comes to the years 1913 and 1914, the Government, when it assumed a particular kind of control of the railway companies, guaranteed them the receipts of 1913. Those were, in fact, the highest receipts. They were due to the enormous traffic of the year 1913. When one hears, as one does hear and read, complaints of what has followed upon Government control, it is at least fair to remember that throughout the period of the War the Government guaranteed to the railway companies the receipts of the bumper year 1913, not-withstanding two or three strikes of the first magnitude, notwithstanding the rise in cost of almost everything that was used, the rise in payment of almost everyone who was employed, and also notwithstanding all the other consequences of an utterly unparalleled war. The right hon. Baronet said that the Minister of Trans-port, against whom he seemed—I hope I am wrong—to have developed a certain antipathy, not of a personal character, of course, was not responsible for what occurred before August, 1919. It would have been hard indeed to make him responsible for that, inasmuch as he was not appointed until August, 1919. But the right hon. Baronet added that the Minister of Transport is responsible for what has occurred since then.

Sir F. BANBURY: All the bad things.

Sir G. HEWART: Within a very few days of his appointment we had the great railway strike of September, 1919.

Sir F. BANBURY: Cause and effect.

Sir G. HEWART: If that be what is suggested, then we have the measure once for all of the fairness of this criticism. A few days after my right hon. Friend's appointment there began the great railway strike. There followed, at intervals, two important coal strikes. There followed, through a complication of causes,
a great decline in trade—what is called a trade slump. Is it really suggested that my right hon. Friend is responsible for these things? But the right hon. Baronet spoke of the management of the railways by the Minister of Transport. The House is perfectly well aware that throughout the whole of this period the management of the railways has remained in the hands of the companies. It is the companies themselves who have managed the railways. It is quite true that the Minister of Transport has from time to time given certain directions, with regard to which I affirm two propositions that I believe to be absolutely correct. The first is, that no direction has ever been issued under the Ministry of Transport which was not concurred in by the companies.

Sir F. BANBURY: No, I must correct that. Take my own company.

Sir G. HEWART: I am willing to make the exception which my right hon. Friend did on Thursday. I am willing to assume, until the contrary is proved, that the right hon. Baronet differs from all the other railway companies in every respect. The second proposition is, that in the case of settlements of wages, those settlements were in every case approved, indeed, they were more than approved, they were advised, by the negotiating committee. It was only the directions in relation to wages that had the effect of increasing expenditure, and this increase of expenditure had the approval of the Wages Board, including three out of four general managers.

Sir F. BANBURY: One objected—it was not the Great Northern. It was another company.

Sir G. HEWART: The right hon. Baronet is quite right. There was a Scottish railway. We must contemplate not one Athanasius contra mundum, but, apparently, two. But subject to those exceptions, whatever their precise dimensions and value may be, the Wages Board, with the approval of three out of four general managers, approved those increases of wages, because they were only just in order to bring the wages of the railway servants into line with the wages of other persons comparable with them.
Then my right hon. Friend took as an example, and a palmary example, of
failure on the part of the Ministry of Transport, the omission to acquire the privately-owned railway wagons. Apparently, the Minister had said that there were some 700,000 of these privately-owned railway wagons, and that they should be acquired on fair terms. As I understand it, the companies are unanimously in favour of the policy of acquiring privately-owned wagons. What was it that stopped that acquisition? It was stopped, or at least postponed, by shortage of money in the hands of the railway companies. It was never suggested or supposed by anyone that it was the taxpayers' money that was to acquire those privately-owned wagons and present them to the railway companies.
The right hon. Baronet, looking at the parentage and origin of the Bill, came to the conclusion beforehand that it must be a bad Bill. He was sure that it could not be anything else. Then, looking at the Bill itself, he says it is a bad Bill, and he puts in the forefront of his criticism the dreadful charge that it is going to destroy the control of Parliament over the country and over the laws which Parliament has made. He founds that charge, as I understand it, upon Clause 3. That wicked Clause, which deals with the provisions to be contained in amalgamations schemes under the Act, actually says that a scheme of that kind may incorporate, with or without modification, any of the provisions of the Companies Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, and the Acts amending that Act and Part V of the Railways Clauses Act, 1863. That is the foundation of the charge. Now, the House is well aware that those are adoptive Acts. They do not apply unless they are incorporated. And what this Bill does is common, I was going to say, to every private Bill; but in every private Bill of that character it is common form to incorporate these Acts of Parliament, subject to modifications necessary to suit modern circumstances. It is because of that ingredient in this Bill, an ingredient which is a commonplace and common form, that the right hon. Baronet permits himself to say that this measure is one to subvert the control of the country and the laws which Parliament has made.
He makes another appalling accusation against my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. He said that my right hon. Friend has revoked, and that he has revoked twice. [Laughter.] Yes, but it is
a far more heinous offence than revoking in the card-room; he has revoked a Gas and Electricity Act at Heme Bay, and he has revoked an Electricity Lighting Order in Mid Sussex. The right hon. Baronet's argument is: If these things are done in the green tree, what is to be done in the dry? If the Minister of Transport is so audacious that, even as things stand, now he is prepared to do acts like that, what is to be expected of him if and when this shocking Bill becomes law? That was the argument. Let us look at it. The right hon. Baronet entirely omitted to explain either of two things. He did not explain why these revocations were made, and he did not explain under what powers they were made. These revocations were made because at Herne Bay and in Mid Sussex those who had got an Act in the one case, and those who had got an Order in the other case, were occupying the ground without supplying the need. To have permitted them to continue in the possession of those powers would have been permitting them to continue to play the part of the dog in the manger. Accordingly the Act in the one case and the Order in the other case were revoked. There was nothing novel in it. The powers so to revoke were conferred upon the Board of Trade over 20 years ago by Section 63 of the Electric Lighting Clauses Act, 1899, and all that happened upon this point in the Electricity Supply Act, 1919, was that these well-known and old-established powers were transferred from one department to another. That is the whole of that criticism. But observe the condemnation which the right hon. Baronet bases upon that sub-structure. He says:
So what we sacrificed thousands of lives for in this War was to get a Minister who, by his own ipse dixit, and by his statement in the 'London Gazette,' can revoke an Act which this House has passed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th May, 1921; col. 387, Vol. 142.]
I refer to that statement, not for its own intrinsic merits, which are no doubt great, but as a fair type and sample of the criticism to which, in some quarters at any rate, this Bill has been and is exposed.
I come now to something which, if the right hon. Baronet will allow me to say so, is a little more serious—not much, but a little more serious. I have already referred to the right hon. Baronet's suggestion or delusion that the Ministry of Transport has been managing the rail-
ways of this country since August, 1919 He followed up that statement by a further statement that under the Bill the management and control of the railways are for the most part either continued in the Ministry or vested in various tribunals or bodies set up by the Bill. There is only one objection to that statement, but it is a serious objection. The statement is palpably at variance with notorious facts. What are the facts? I want to make three remarks about that state-statement, and three only. In the first place, all the temporary powers of the Ministry of Transport cease under this Bill. Members of the House who have looked into the matter are aware that those powers are contained in Section 3, Sub-section (1) of the Act of 1919. I am not going to enumerate them. They deal with such different matters as rates and fares, salaries and wages, working or discontinuance of parts of undertakings, and the carrying out alterations, improvements, or additions. Under the Bill those powers in the Minister cease. My second observation is, that the powers which are conferred upon the Minister by this Bill are strictly limited and necessary in character. Clause 12, Sub-section (2), confers powers as to common standards and co-operative working, and Clause 15 confers powers as to restrictions on combination, allocation of traffic, and pooling of receipts. I want to make two remarks about these powers. In the first place, so far as the companies are concerned, the interposition of a committee on which the railway companies are to have a majority, six out of nine, secures the companies against the arbitrary exercise of the powers, and it is provided that no Order can be made which prejudicially affects the interests of stockholders. My second observation is—and I submit this to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert)—that it is obvious that where a regulated monopoly is to be substituted for unlimited competition there ought to be a Government Department charged with the duty of seeing that the monopoly is not abused. When I am told, as we are told again and again, that the public are to have no voice in this matter, I say that one answer to that criticism, and not the only one, is that the public will have a representative in the Ministry of Transport. My right hon. Friend (Sir E. Geddes) said on, Thursday, and I repeat his words:
I want to put the thing fairly. I want to give the railways a reasonable amount of freedom in their management, and the community a proper amount of control."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th May, 1921; cols. 354–5, Vol. 142.]
My third observation under this head remains. The right hon. Baronet, I am sure, is aware, because he has given the Bill minute and careful study, that under the Bill if revenue is affected by an order of the Railway and Canal Commission, or by an order of the Minister, Clauses 52 and 53 come into operation. Those are Clauses containing provisions as to the adjustment of powers of charging to revenue, and a periodical review of standard charges and exceptional rates.

Sir F. BANBURY: The rates may not bring in revenue.

Sir G. HEWART: The right hon. Baronet concluded that part of his criticism by going so far as to say that this Bill is a bastard sort of Nationalisation Bill. Does that mean—it will be interesting to know, and perhaps we shall soon know—that the right hon. Baronet will go into the Lobby to support the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Miles Platting?

Sir F. BANBURY: The Question to be put from the Chair need not be the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Miles Platting, but the words, "That this Bill be now read a Second time," stand part, and, therefore, it would be perfectly open to vote against the words standing part without in any way committing oneself to the Amendment of the right hon. Member.

Sir G. HEWART: Then the right hon. Baronet has a means of escape. I think that the right hon. Baronet was a little hard upon the amalgamation tribunal. He said that everything in this Bill seemed to tend to produce new posts. But it is only if the parties fail to agree that the tribunal is to act as arbitrator. There was another part of his speech in which he seemed to be under a misapprehension as to Clause 4 of the Bill. That Clause does not require the approval of the Ministry to a voluntary scheme, but, on the other hand, the tribunal "must," not "may," confirm a scheme if that scheme conforms with the requirements laid down in Clause 3.
Then I come to the remarks of the right hon. Baronet upon the sum of £60,000,000,
which it has been agreed shall be paid to the companies in settlement of certain claims. I agree that it is not £60,000,000 net. After Income Tax has been repaid, the sum will be £51,000,000. That figure has been criticised from two sides. It has been said with great force from the Benches opposite that the figure is excessively high, and it has been said or suggested upon this side that the figure is excessively low. I suggest to the House, and I think the House is really of this opinion, that the figure represents a fair compromise. There was not one of us who looked with care into the figures who did not come to the conclusion that it was a fair compromise. What was it with which we were dealing? We were dealing with claims which may or might arise at the conclusion of the period of control. If one looks at the Report of Lord Colwyn's Committee it is suggested there that these claims might amount to something like £150,000,000. But that figure did not exhaust all the claims which, at the end of the period of control, might be made. There was also an in-determinate something which was estimated to amount to another figure round about £50,000,000. Therefore, we were dealing with a total in the neighbourhood of £200,000,000. Applying to the question the best information we had and the best examination we could, we came to the conclusion that the Crown would be well advised to settle these claims which might arise at the end of the period of control for a net sum of £51,000,000. The House will observe the criticism which is made upon that figure—though in my submission it has no relation to that figure at all—by the right hon. Baronet. He says that this is a game of heads the Crown or the Ministry of Transport wins, and tails the companies lose. He says that we are getting it both ways. We are to settle for £51,000,000, but we are nevertheless to hold the terror of litigation over the heads of the companies. In that part of his criticism the right hon. Baronet is sinning against the light. He knows as well as I do that the £51,000,000 are payable in respect of claims which arise, or might arise, or have arisen, at the end of the period of control, and that that is something absolutely distinct and separate from disputes which have in fact arisen during the period of control upon certain payments which have already been made. There is, for example, a sum in dispute, I think of £8,000,000 about
excess maintenance. There is a sum of £5,000,000 in dispute upon the application of certain agreed formulae to other items of account. And there is a further sum of a couple of millions which represents the amount paid in respect of maintenance of rolling stock and plant which have been taken and sent overseas. Those sums in dispute amount to a total of £15,000,000. They once were larger.

Sir F. BANBURY: The Minister of Transport in this House on the 3rd May, in answer to Sir Edward Carson, gave the amounts as £20,000,000, £8,000,000, and £3,000,000. It is in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir G. HEWART: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is right, and that if error there be the error is mine. The point is not the amount, but the disputes with which that amount is concerned. They are disputes as to whether moneys which have been paid under various heads, excess maintenance, rolling stock overseas, and other items of account, have not, in fact, been excessive. What in the world have the merits of those disputes to do with the total sum of money to be paid in respect of other matters at the end of the period of control? I am in favour of settling everything, if it can be done, on fair terms. But the right hon. Baronet is aware that, in dealing with these disputed claims which have arisen during the course of the period of control, very different considerations apply to different railway companies. It is impossible to make a general settlement, because this company may have a clean sheet and that company may not. If the right hon. Baronet will help us to come to a settlement, we shall all be indebted to him. But meantime it is quite beside the mark to criticise the sum of £51,000,000 payable at the end of control by reference to the pendency of these disputes as to what has already been paid.
Well, I listened very carefully to the comprehensive speech of the right hon. Baronet, who is, of course, the most active and, if he will forgive me for saying so, the most censorious critic of this Bill. And at the end of his speech he did not shirk the question, what ought we to do? He told us that we ought to
withdraw the Bill. How many times, have we heard a similar suggestion from him?

Sir F. BANBURY: The Revenue Bill was withdrawn a little while ago.

Sir G. HEWART: Then we are to-restore the railways to the companies. We are to fix—I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) will be interested in this—the existing rates for 20, 30 or 40 years or for all time, we are to give power to the railway companies to reduce those rates if they like, and we are to abolish the Act of 1894. Now those charges which are to be continued in perpetuity are the peak charges, the climax charges of the War. Rates for goods are now, I understand, on an average 112 per cent. above pre-War standard, and fares for passengers are 75 per cent. above pre-War standard. The right hon. Baronet himself, in another part of his speech dealing with another point, actually said:
You cannot increase rates any more. In fact, I am inclined to think you have got them too high already, and if we are going to get the traffic and give the merchants and manufacturers of this country a chance, we-shall have to reduce the rates."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th May, 1921; col. 393, Vol. 142.]
Then observe his plan. We are to give the companies power to retain these maximum rates in perpetuity, with power to reduce them if they like. Suppose that they brought the charges to a little below the maxima. What is the other ingredient in the right hon. Baronet's proposed settlement? We are to abolish the Act of 1894. That Act provides that where, within the limits of the maxima—there was no question of raising the maxima—any company proposes to raise an existing charge, then that company is required upon challenge to show that that increase is reasonable. Abolish the Act of 1894, says the right hon. Baronet, give back the railways to the companies, continue the maximum rates in perpetuity, letting the companies reduce them if they like, and if they want to raise them again there shall be no Act of 1894 to prevent them!

Sir F. BANBURY: Not above the maxima.

Sir G. HEWART: I agree, but if the companies like to reduce them, and do reduce them, then there is to be no Act of 1894 to prevent them being raised again.

Mr. LAMBERT: Are not you repealing it yourself?

Sir G. HEWART: No. I do not agree.

Sir F. BANBURY: You are.

Sir G. HEWART: Not as part of any such scheme. That being so, I begin to understand what was meant by the right hon. Baronet in the beginning of his speech when he said that, instead of facing a temporary catastrophe, this Bill is to give us a catastrophe for all time. A catastrophe for all time is a conception which puts some strain upon the imagination. But if you are to satisfy the phrase "catastrophe for all time," then I think it might perhaps be satisfied by a settlement under which the railway companies were to have unfettered control of the railways, with the rates fixed for ever at their present maximum point, with powers to the companies to reduce them if they wish, but also with absolute power to raise them again to the maximum level. The great mass of the railway companies of this country approve the bargain that has been made, and they approve, in substance, this Bill, as the trading community does. It is at least a well considered attempt to deal with this great problem with fairness to the public, fairness to the men, fairness to the traders, and fairness to the companies. I hope that the right hon. Baronet, even at this eleventh hour, may think better of it. I am sure that he remembers the story of the 12th juryman who was satisfied that his 11 colleagues were donkeys. He enjoys now—I must not say a grandiose, but a solitary eminence. Yet even at this late stage I appeal to the right hon. Baronet to come over and help those who are seeking to make this Bill nothing but a fair measure for all parties concerned, and not least, fair to the public of this country.

Colonel MILDMAY: I think that the House will be agreed as to the geniality of the speech to which we have just listened. I agree with both the last speakers as to the supreme importance of this Bill. While I am anxious to say a few words in regard to it, one cannot help being daunted by the difficulties of dissecting this Bill with its 75 Clauses and seven Schedules, and I have some doubt of my ability to do so in a helpful way. I happen to be a director of a great railway company, the Great Western Railway Company, and I am
proud of the tributes which have been paid to it by the right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert), and the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean), the other day. That railway company endeavoured during the War to do its duty by the Government and by the public in every sense, financially as in other respects. I believe that the Minister of Transport would be the first to admit that. The House probably knows that, throughout last year, there appeared in the Press a series of anonymous articles containing most damaging charges against the railway companies. The general charges implied a desire to defraud the Government in the interests of shareholders, and among all those accusations that was the one to which we were most anxious to have an opportunity of replying, as, of course, we could reply. It seemed to us that this avalanche of accusations was due to the desire to create an atmosphere favourable to the Ministry of Transport. I wish to disclaim any desire to press that, because the Minister of Transport himself denied that he was in any way responsible for those accusations, but somehow or other—I do not think that this will be denied—the House derived the impression that the Minister of Transport was not greatly concerned to dissociate himself from those accusations.
This being so—at any rate, we think it is so—I and some others went to the Ministry of Transport to see what was the ground for these accusations. They said in answer, "This or that little company has made outrageous claims." Why tar everybody with the same brush? We thereupon made the rejoinder that it was only fair we should put forward our case in the newspapers; but it was represented to us, that it would not be desirable for us to do so at that time, and we deferred to the wish which was so expressed by the Ministry of Transport, and refrained from clearing ourselves in the Press as we wished to do. The House will look at the position. We believed, we knew, we had done our duty throughout the War. We were held up to the public as miscreants, and had no opportunity of making clear our side of the case, and we were told that our restlessness under these accusations was due to a guilty conscience. Has there not been a little too much of this preparation of the ground? What I call "preparation of the ground" is the enormous claims
which were attributed to the railway companies in the newspapers. Were these claims put forward in the newspapers in this way, so that when the real claims of the companies were known, the Government would be able to boast that they had reduced them very considerably? It looks rather like it. I have always been on very good terms with the Minister of Transport, and I do not want to endanger our happy relations, so I will not press that point.
As to the great cause which the country has to be grateful to the railway companies, I must say something. It is known well enough that in 1915 Lord Kitchener was unable to obtain sufficient munitions. I know that myself, because I was in the Ypres salient just before the second Battle of Ypres at a time when our guns had only one round per gun, although we read in the newspapers that we had all we wanted. Our men were being bombarded from north, east, and south by a concentration of German artillery, and naturally they suffered terribly. I remember very well that the General Officer Commanding the division in which I was serving talked with me on the subject and said, "How can I produce some confidence in the men in the trenches who are suffering in this way? "He replied to his own question, "I will fire the one round from each gun directly over their heads so that they may know that there is something being done."There is pathos about that. In these circumstances, Lord Kitchener begged the assistance of the railway companies, and the use of their buildings and repair shops, and, as a result, shells and guns military wagons, and equipment of all kinds were turned out in enormous quantities by the companies for four years and sent to the Army. That was in addition to their services in conveying troops and stores. All these munitions were produced at cost price, saving millions to the country. That is rather a contrast to the sister transport service, the shipping industry. There was no profiteering in our case. There were no inflated dividends, and we made no immense fortunes. All of our personnel that we could spare and that was not abroad fighting was devoted to helping the Government against the enemy, and the arrears of maintenance, of which so
much has been said, were due largely to this cause.
I come now to the Bill. I admit that my views are not entitled, perhaps, to the same weight as those of our greatest experts in railway matters, who are to be found on both sides of the House. Therefore I rather shrink from speaking for my co-directors of the Great Western Railway Company as a whole. I have, however, taken a deep interest in the railway questions that are at issue and I offer my opinion for what it is worth. I say frankly and honestly, that there are certain provisions in the Bill which are distasteful to me. I am convinced that some amendments are required, not only in the interest of the railway companies, but in the interest of the public. On the other hand, I realise that we railway directors, while we are of course responsible to the owners of the railways, are at the same time to a certain degree servants of the public. Bearing that in mind, I find in the provisions of the Bill a basis on which I am convinced you can build a settlement which will be to the durable advantage of all parties and people in the land. In the speech of the Minister of Transport there were one or two points which seemed to me rather questionable. He startled me when he said that, in the view of the Government, there is no obligation upon the State to put the railways back into a pre-War position. The right hon. Gentleman added, "I have no doubt that will be disputed."Of course it is disputed. I cannot help thinking that his recollection is a little hazy in this connection; for the Home Secretary, when in charge of the Ministry of Transport Bill in 1919, said:
The railways which are taken over under the Act of 1871 are to have full compensation. Under this Act, if the Bill becomes law, they will be entitled to be paid for depreciation even if this is not claimed in the 1914 agreements.
Again, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, the Minister of Transport said that the railway industry was in a declining condition before the War. It had declined, and he endeavoured to demonstrate that the present financial position was partly due to a continuance of that decline and was not mainly attributable either to the consequences of the War or to Government control. The Attorney-General has dealt with the question in some degree to-day, but he did not convince me at all. I do not see how it is
possible to get over the assertion of the representative of the Government that the most prosperous year in the history of the railways was 1913. I shall not pursue that further.
On the question of the present high rates of wages and their particular allocation, the Minister of Transport has been anxious to represent, as was the Attorney-General this evening, that they are not due to Government control, and especially that he is not responsible for the last additional increase given by the National Wages Board in June, 1920. His words were, "He was not concerned." I cannot agree with that, although the Attorney-General offered an elaborate explanation of it this evening. I feel most strongly that the railway managers who were upon this Board were not entirely free agents, and that they were subject to a certain amount of pressure. Let me give an instance out of many of how increased pay bears upon a company with Government control—increased pay which would never have been conceded by the company itself. On the Great Western Railway there is a station called Stanton, in Wilts. Before the War there were employed there one stationmaster at 27s. a week and one gateman at 19s. per week, and the total cost of the station per annum was £119 12s. At present there are employed at the station one stationmaster at 108s. per week, two gatemen at 66s. per week, and one porter at 66s. per week. That is a total per annum of £796, as against £119 12s. before the War. The revenue at this station in 1913 was £998; in 1920 it was £875. That is a condition of affairs which no businesslike company would have sanctioned if it had been a free agent. The question as to the position of men at level crossings has been quoted before in this House. Anyone can see that the railway companies would never have brought about the present condition of affairs if they had been acting on their own responsibility in the settlement of wages.
I do not wish to go deeply into the question of wages, but incidentally I will say this—it is the purchasing power of wages and not their nominal pecuniary value that must be the basis of future wage settlements if we are to have a cessation of all that labour unrest which has been so serious in the past. That principle cannot be controverted. It is not recognised, but it cannot be avoided.
I shall not elaborate the theme. There is no intention upon the part of the railway companies to make any such general attack on wages as is suggested by those who are anxious to inflame the railwaymen against the companies' management.
As to grouping, I am in full accord with the Government policy, for it carries out only what has been the railway companies' policy for years. The Great Western Railway Company now represents an amalgamation of 137 companies. The main line from Paddington to Penzance was originally composed of five independent concerns—the Great Western from Paddington to Bristol; the Bristol and Exeter Railway to Exeter; the South Devon Railway to Plymouth; the Cornwall Railway to Truro; and the West Cornwall Railway to Penzance. Amalgamation has, of course, resulted in a better service for the public and the better working of the railways from every point of view. Many other examples could be given. It has been well said, and it may be accepted as an axiom, that competition by a number of railways serving the same area means expenditure which, of necessity, has to be borne by the trading and travelling public. As a director of the Great Western Railway Company, I say that the railway service in South Wales will gain very greatly by the amalgamation which is proposed. At the same time it must be made certain that the amalgamation is not made so big and swollen as to be unmanageable, as are the American trusts.
6.0 P.M.
When the Minister of Transport says that the economies to be effected are to amount to £25,000,000 a year, I think he is over-sanguine. The Attorney-General pooh-poohed that idea and suggested that it was likely to be an even higher sum. It has been stated that competent experts have declared that there would be a saving of £45,000,000 a year. Does the Minister of Transport base these estimates on the present inflated cost of working? That is a most important point. It is hardly fair if he does so. On the other hand, if he contemplates an economy of £25,000,000 a year on pre-War expenditure, he seems to forget that the total cost of working the railroads of Great Britain in pre-War days amounted to no more than £76,000,000. To say that on that expenditure you are to save £25,000,000 is surely absurd? The hon.
and gallant Member for Durham (Major Hills) suggested that the door should be left open for voluntary grouping. I cannot quite agree with that suggestion. You must have some kind of compulsion in the background, just the right amount, or matters will be likely to drift on in-definitely. There must be no unjustifiable haste. I ask myself, Is the date, 30th June, 1922, too early a date for the completion of all these amalgamations? Very big interests are concerned and those interests may lie in different directions. It will take considerable time to reconcile those various interests. There was a most important declaration on the subject in this morning's papers from Sir Alexander Butterworth, in an address to the shareholders of the North Eastern Railway Company. I am sure that the Government would do well to study all that he has to say as to the giving of sufficient time for amalgamation. Then there is the grant of £60,000,000 to be paid to the companies—a very modest estimate in comparison with the £165,000,000which was mentioned in the Colwyn Report, and so moderate, according to one hon. Member, that it made one doubt whether £60,000,000 was not too high. It would seem that anything those responsible for the railway companies do must be looked upon as suspect. In this connection, the railway companies are entitled to some credit. They refused to bargain in the Chinese fashion. They refrained from putting their claims so high in the first instance as to have something to give away. Such a procedure has been very detrimental in the case of the coal-mining difficulties, and the process of arriving at a settlement by alternate pecuniary concessions on each side is a very bad one. The railway companies placed their cards on the table, they frankly assessed the sum to which they thought they were in justice entitled, they stuck to that sum, and they determinedly turned a deaf ear to any suggestions as to its reduction. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) complained that of the £60,000,000 £9,000,000 is to be paid in Income Tax- Except in cases of railways paying no dividends this is a most advantageous proposal for the railway companies. All the money accruing to railway companies from this source,
however applied, will increase the sum available for dividends, which in ordinary circumstances would be subject to deductions in respect of Income Tax. I do not see how there can be any legitimate complaint in connection with this provision.
I regret very much that the Minister of Transport poured cold water on the arrangement—which was arrived at with infinite trouble—as to wages and conditions of service, in so far as it involved the abandonment of the representation of employés on the boards of directors. It seemed to me that the hon. Member for Miles Platting (Mr. Clynes) spoke with very little knowledge in this connection. I do not believe that the men have ever wished for representation on the boards. I wish the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) were here to-day. I think he would bear me out when I say so. The idea must originally have come from America, for it was proposed in the Cummings Railway Bill that there should be a similar provision, but it was never passed. The proposal was turned down and does not find a place in the United States Transportation Act. The hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) suggested that perhaps in the Committee stage this determination not to have working men on boards of directors might be reversed. I have here an important letter on that subject from Mr. Cramp, dated the 27th May, and addressed to Sir Herbert Walker. It is as follows:

"DEAR SIR HERBERT,—I have just had an opportunity of reading last night's Debate on the Railway Bill, and I note that Mr. William Graham made the following statement: 'The position of the railwaymen is this: they were very anxious to secure a national wages system, and they are still very anxious to preserve that system; but they are also very anxious to maintain the claim which was previously put forward for representation on the Boards of Management, and they see no reason whatever why that claim should not be pressed in the course of the Committee stage of the Bill.'

This statement would convey the impression that the members of the railwaymen's union desire to repudiate the arrangement which they made with the representatives of the railway companies. Therefore, I want to state quite plainly that so far as the National Union of Railwaymen is concerned, having entered into a bargain, they are prepared to keep it whether the results are satisfactory or otherwise. This being so, the National Union of Railwaymen has not withdrawn from the agreement made with your-
self on 3rd May, and my desire in sending you this letter is to ensure that our attitude shall not be misunderstood.

Yours faithfully,

C. T. CRAMP."

It has already been said in the course of the Debate that no pressure has been exerted upon the men's leaders. They are not amenable to such pressure, and have never shown themselves amenable to it. They stand up for their rights, and are not afraid to do so. The "Railway Review," the organ of the railwaymen's union, has repudiated any wish to have men upon the board, and has said it was inadvisable that they should be there. The "Railway Service Journal," the organ of the railway clerks, contains this passage:
We have not the slightest desire to see the Railway Clerks' Association sharing in the management with Lord Claude Hamilton, Sir Frederick Banbury, Sir Herbert Walker, and other directors and managers, and we sincerely trust none of the railway trades unions will accede to or accept representation, even in an advisory capacity, on any Boards of Management so long as railways are privately owned and controlled.
I agree that what is wanted—to quote the words in which it was so very well put the other day—is "to secure for the working man a greater share in, and responsibility for, the determination and observance of the conditions under which work is carried on." Nothing but good can come from such an association. It is right from the point of view of railway directors and those who manage railways that the men should be made familiar with the difficulties of management, and this object is attained by the admirable understanding arrived at between the railway companies and the trades unions. The Government are now being urged to lend their assent in Committee to a provision which shall place the men upon the boards. I would say to the Government: Do not meddle with any portion of this arrangement which has been arrived at with such great difficulty. You will endanger the whole agreement if you do. Frankly, I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that we cannot look upon this as a Committee point. It is far too important for that, and he will force our opposition to the whole Bill if he seeks to disturb the arrangement which has been arrived at after so much trouble.

Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: My hon. Friend says, "Force our opposition." Whose opposition?

Colonel MILDMAY: I think I am entitled to say that on behalf of the majority of railway companies. That may be taken as the position until it is contradicted. The railway companies are entitled to the thanks of the community for what they have lately done. They have been faced, like the great mining industry, with all the difficulties of decontrol, and it seems to me they have met those difficulties far more wisely. Infinite pains have been taken by the railway authorities—and I may say it quite proudly, by the Great Western in particular—to get a happy understanding with the men, and I am glad to think we have succeeded. If only the coal owners and the coal miners had been as frank and open in their negotiations things would have gone far better. The whole details of this arrangement are being worked out at the present moment, and one of the most important provisions which has been agreed to is this:
There shall be no sudden withdrawal of labour, nor are employés to hamper the proper working of the railway, on account of any unsettled question falling within the purview of the Central Wages Board, before the expiration of one month after such matter has been referred by that Board to the National Wages Board.
To my mind this delay, which is provided for means a very great deal. In the case of the League of Nations there is a provision that there shall be delay before War is declared, and this is just the same in connection with the railways. There is besides this the establishment of the Councils familiarised to us, by association with your name, Mr. Speaker, and this will enable great use to be made of the intelligence of the very best railway men. This is nothing new to the Great Western Railway system. We have long had a Suggestions and Inventions Committee, and we pride ourselves on being pioneers in these matters. We have had thousands of suggestions to the mutual advantage of the company and of the suggestors.
What about the opposition to this Bill? There is opposition from Labour which clings to the possibility of nationalisation. I am not going to discuss that, because it is obvious that in present circumstances the public will not have it at any price. They have had too much experience of management by Government. The Scottish companies oppose it, but it seems to me the objections which they have made can be dealt with in Committee.
They are mainly connected with grouping, and it seems to me that such questions as that of longitudinal linking instead of lateral linking can be dealt with in Committee. There remains the opposition of my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). I do not wish to hurt his feelings, because he is a very old friend of mine, but opposition has become a habit with him. Is he quite sure that he has the backing of his constituents in opposing the Second Reading of this Bill, involving such an advantageous labour agreement as that to which we have come? He has commented upon the voting in the Railway Association upon this agreement, and has told us that 21 voted for and 10 against. But who were included in the 10? There was the Great Northern Railway—his own railway—there were five Scottish railways, and there were also three Irish railways, to whom the scheme does not apply at all. It is obvious that the great mass of the railway opinion in this country was in favour of the agreement, and no wonder Sir Herbert Walker thought it his duty to sign on behalf of the railway companies generally, while not, of course, binding those who objected, the agreement being subsequently signed by the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), by Mr. Bromley, and by Mr. Cramp on behalf of the Trade Unions. But my right hon. Friend, my very old Friend in this House, if he will allow me to say so, should strike out a new line. Let him no longer be in this House the handmaid of obstruction. I hope I may say that without offence. Let him no longer take a lugubrious view of the future. We are not going to the devil so very fast. I am not a follower of the gloomy Dean. We have heard a great deal of froth talked lately. It has had far more prominence in the newspapers than it deserves. I have every confidence, however, in the sound common sense of the masses of the people. At this moment we ought to try to be helpful to one another. I welcome this Bill. I welcome the substitution of co-operation for cutthroat competition. I welcome the dismissal of the possibility of endless litigation and great disputes. The Bill does require considerable amendment, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the majority of the railway directors will meet him in a fair spirit and will give him
all the assistance in their power to construct a railway policy on the lines he has suggested.

Mr. JAMES WILSON: There are many points in this Bill which are certainly commendable, but on analysing them thoroughly and carefully one is driven to the conclusion that the advantages of the Bill do not so completely outweigh its ill effects as to justify this House in giving the measure a Second Reading. There can be no doubt that in the early days of railway history in this country small railway companies and private enterprise played a useful pioneer part, but in the year 1914, before control, railway management in this country had been reduced to a complete absurdity. The Government had to take over the control of 114 separate and competing railway companies in this country. They had to take over concerns managed by 120 boards of directors, many of whom directed no one but themselves, who had neither rolling stock nor staff, but who successfully used their influence against every progressive suggestion that was made by the large railway companies who in the main manipulated the control of the railway companies of this country. On any proposal which was calculated to improve the efficiency of the railway service as a whole the whims of these boards of directors with neither railway stocks nor staff had to be considered, and very often their prejudices had to be taken into account to the detriment of the general and efficient railway service of this country. It is for that reason that the grouping arrangement is to be welcomed as a step in the right direction. It is only regrettable that the Minister of Transport did not display that courage, with which we are all so familiar, and come forward with a Bill embodying the principles of nationalisation and central administration in order to give the people of this country the real advantage of a sound, efficient and economical railway system.
I was delighted to hear the Minister say that he approves of the principle of working-class representation on boards of management. Everyone must have heard with profound relief that the Government of which he is a distinguished Member was prepared to support that principle in the Bill now under consideration. But the Minister regretted that the trade unions had bargained themselves behind
his back out of that provision. Let us see what the position of the trade unions is now and always has been in regard to that proposal? The proposals of trade unions in relation to the management were that as a first principle the railways ought to be State-owned, and, secondly, that the boards of directors should consist of one-half nominated by Parliament and the other half of the representatives of working men elected through their trade unions. Under a scheme of national ownership, what did the Minister and the Government propose to the representatives of working men as an alternative to the suggestion put forward by the trade unions. The Government proposal was that the board should consist of about 21 members for each group of railways, that the majority of the board should represent the shareholders and the large trading interests, and that the remaining membership of the Board should consist as to two-thirds of employés elected by the workers on the railways and one-third of the leading administrative officials co-opted by the rest of the board. The trade unions felt that it would be desirable, and personally I agree it would be desirable, to have working men representative on the boards of directors, even under private ownership. I for one am quite sure that these working men could put a point of view to the directors which is not being put to-day, and in the very nature of things cannot be put, and that would be a distinct advantage to the general community and to the railway companies as well. The trade unions felt, however, that the proposal of the Minister was such, faced as it was with the hostility of the railway companies, which has been re-echoed and reinforced here this afternoon, that under these conditions representatives of labour would be in such an invidious position as not to warrant them in insisting at the moment on representation on the board of directors. I think a profound mistake has been made, and I hope at no distant day—I believe it will not prove far distant—railway companies and those who speak for them will take a more broad and comprehensive outlook. We are getting many admirable arrangements now for utilising the best brains of the railwaymen, and the railways are prepared evidently to use them in any capacity except on the boards of directors. I do not wish to pursue that any further than to say this. The trade unions have
made a bargain. They will stand by that bargain, and much as I feel a mistake has been made, we can all join in the hope that at no distant date this mistake will be retrieved, and the railways will take more comprehensive views on the question of management which will be to the general advantage, not only of the railways, but of the trading community of the whole country.
There is no doubt that this grouping of railways is going to have a tremendous effect on the efficiency of the railway service. The wicked and wanton waste which took place in the administration of our railways before the War was deplorable and was increasing to such an extent that I am quite persuaded, sooner or later, nay, I believe sooner, it must have killed the trade and commerce of this country altogether. The amount of haulage of empty trucks from one end of the country to the other, producing no revenue, was something that was a complete negation of management which ought to be discontinued absolutely, and the elimination of that, and of the useless and wanton duplication of services totally unnecessary, is bound to be reflected in reducing the costs of administration and consequently reducing the charges of all kinds which fall not only on the travelling public but on the traders, very materially in the near future, so soon as the effects of these new proposals come to be felt. When one looks at the situation from that aspect one can only deplore that when we are dealing with this proposal on the lines that we are now considering it, and when the country is ready for a reorganisation of the railway services, the Government have not been bold enough to make a complete sweep of the old order of things and to set up a railway service in this country which shall be owned by the people and which will have centralised administration in order to eliminate the waste that will still exist under this system of grouping. There is a welcome suggestion that in the reductions of charges that are bound to accrue as a result of this very limited proposal there is going to be a mutual advantage both to the railway companies and to the public. My experience as a working man has been—and I am not apologising for the railway companies, but one does get an impression when one has served on a public service for many years—my impression as a rail-
way working man is that there is a tendency on the part of the public to put obstacles wherever possible in the way of railway companies giving an efficient service, and then to criticise the companies when they find that the service is not all that can be desired. Under the old form of management and the wastage of rolling stock the demurrage was deplorable in the extreme, and if we are going to get the full benefit from the railway services there must be co-operation between traders and the public and the railway companies in order to get the best possible results. I hope that those who are able to exercise some influence may do so, in order that we may, in the interests of national efficiency and economy, get the most perfect railway service in this country that is possible.
I have to draw the attention of the Minister to Clause 56 of the Bill, in which there are included certain words, to which very strong exception is taken. It deals with the question of wages, and it goes on to say, it shall
be referred to and settled by the Central Wages Board.
I do not quite know what the Minister has in his mind as to the meaning of those words, but it is only fair to the Minister to say that he is not here charged with importing this into the Clause, for I happened to receive a copy of a document which was issued as a result of a meeting between the trade unions and the railway companies, and these are the exact words contained in that document. But it does appear, however, when set up in cold print, that it would admit of the construction that the trade unions have abrogated their right to strike if they so desire. They think that the implication of the words is that it must be settled, and that the trade unions have forfeited their right to withdraw their labour. In order to give weight to that, I have a copy of a document showing that, at a subsequent meeting, the Committee considered the proposal in the Bill, after it had been drafted, and the joint opinion of that Committee is this: When the representatives of the National Union of Railwaymen called attention to Clause 56—which provides that
all questions relating to rates of pay or conditions of service of men to whom this part of this Act applies shall, in default of agreement between the railway companies
and the trade unions concerned, be referred to and settled by the Central Wages Board, or, on appeal, the National Wages Board,
in their view, this wording, coupled with that contained in the Clause of the draft scheme, to the effect that no withdrawal of labour shall take place before the expiration of one month after such matter has been referred to the National Wages Board, implies that the trade unions have sacrificed the principle of the right to strike. The railway representatives pointed out that the stipulation in Clause 4 of the draft scheme, that there shall be no withdrawal of labour, is applicable only to the period prior to the consideration of a case by the National Wages Board, and suggested that, if there is any doubt as to the meaning of the words in the Bill the intention should be made clear when the Clause is under consideration. I should like an assurance from the Minister, before the Bill goes to Committee, if it is able to survive its First Reading, that he will accept the principle, at all events, that there is no intention in the Bill of denying to the workers the right to strike after a stipulated period, and that he will accept words in Committee which will meet that point of view.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Sir E. Geddes): Is my hon. Friend reading from the Minutes of a further meeting, or some other document? I do not know what it is.

Mr. WILSON: This meeting was held at the St. Pancras Hotel on Friday, 20th May, 1921. The representatives of the companies were Mr. W. Clower (in the chair), Mr. Beveridge, Mr. A. Harris, Mr. E. Wharton, and Mr. H. Wheeler; and the representatives of the men were Mr. Cramp, Mr. W. J. Abrahams, Mr. W. J. Watson, Mr. Bromley, Mr. Oxlade, Mr. Walkden, and Mr. R. W. Gill. They were the representatives of the three trade unions. They considered the Bill, and these words in relation to the Clause, and the railway companies said that the Clause as now framed would carry the implication far beyond anything they intended or desired, and suggested that the Bill should be so amended in Committee as would make that point perfectly clear. I should like an assurance from the Minister that in Committee he will accept that point of view, and accept words that will
remove any apprehension that may exist in the minds of representatives of the trade unions.
There is another point upon which I should like some assurance from the Minister. At the present moment there are on most of our railways superannuation schemes, and the working and administrative staffs of railways have a vested interest in those schemes in this country to the amount of about £21,000,000 to £22,000,000. Therefore, it will be desirable that in any new scheme the vested interests of the workers ought to have adequate protection. It is felt that in this Bill—and I am not going to weary the House with details, because it is all Committee work, if it is going to be dealt with at all—sufficient and adequate protection is not made, not only for the immediate, but for the prospective benefits of members of these existing superannuation funds and pensions schemes on the railways, and that, having an amount of invested capital, as I have mentioned, amounting to £22,000,000, they believe that they are entitled to more adequate consideration and safeguard than this Bill provides. I should, therefore, like an assurance from Minister that he will in Committee be prepared adequately and fully to safeguard the rights of the workers, so far as superannuation and pension schemes are concerned.
That brings me to the last point that I wish to make in connection with this Bill. There is no doubt that the railways of the country made a very valuable contribution to the success during the past five or six years, and that they were in a much more parlous state than many of the general public were aware or dreamt of, because, after all, you could not have a railway service taxed to its utmost capacity, as the railways of this country were taxed, and when you found all branch lines, locomotives, rolling stock and everything else lifted from this country and almost within a few hours running on the other side of the water, with the depleted staff, the consequent neglect of repairs, maintenance and renewal, you could not have that going on for four or five years without very seriously affecting the service, and at the period of the Armistice the railways of this country were in a very parlous state indeed. But I think we are entitled to congratulate the Minister on overtaking so efficiently and so effectively the arrears of main-
tenance and renewals, and restoring the railway system in a comparatively short time.
Those of us who keep our eyes about us, if we are not wilfully blind, cannot fail to see on every railway almost interminable lines of completely new stock, which is very properly being built, if the railways are to meet the calls upon them, which are bound to arise when the present trade depression is over. Every railway company in this country is fortifying itself with new stock of all sorts which will supply the needs for many years ahead. All the arrears have been overtaken, and I venture to suggest that when the railway companies take over the railways again in August of this year, they will have handed back to them from the nation a system of railways which, from a commercial point of view, is infinitely more valuable than the service which the nation took over in August, 1914. The Minister and his Department are entitled to every credit for getting the railways restored at the earliest possible moment, if the railways are going to play that part which they must play if the trade and commerce of this country are to improve in the immediate future. But when we look at that aspect of the case, and place it alongside this proposal to pay to the railway companies £60,000,000 gross, one has looked to this Bill in vain, one has listened to speeches and failed to find any ground to justify this House in admitting that the railway companies are entitled to that colossal sum. There is no doubt about it, and if my knowledge and if my words do not amount to much, let us get to the facts.
We have only recently had the Report of the Colwyn Committee, and we have all fresh in our memories the tribute which the Minister rightly paid to the members of that Committee for the valuable assistance and service they have rendered to him and to the country. The Colwyn Committee had to consider claims from railway companies for compensation amounting to from £156,000,000 to possibly £200,000,000 in the aggregate. But it would be idle to pretend that the Colwyn Committee ever held the opinion that the companies were entitled to that amount of compensation, because, as I understand it, the Colwyn Committee were very doubtful that the companies were entitled to any compensation at all, and, if they were entitled to any com-
pensation, then the sum ought to be very small indeed. Therefore, one fails to find what justification there is for the Government even proposing to pay this colossal sum. But one is almost astounded that the railway companies should have made a claim when one considers the whole circumstances and the whole situation. As the hon. Gentleman who preceded me said, the railway companies in the period of the War were not able to make the same colossal profits as were made by the sister service, the shipping companies. Are we to understand, then, that the claim is now made in order that the railway companies may enter the lists as War profiteers? If so, there appears to be no justification for it. But were the railway shareholders very badly dealt with in the period of the War? True, they were not in the position of making colossal profits, like shipowners and several other concerns one could mention. But, at least, they had this advantage during the whole period of the War, that they were paid their dividends on the best year the railway shareholders of this country had ever experienced. During the period of the War they were freed from any risks. Every bill they presented had a Government backing, and was backed by this country. I am going to suggest that, after all, it is only assumption that even the railway companies would have done better under individual management during war conditions than they did under the Government's proposals, which gave them reward based upon the best year of their experience in the country.
I therefore suggest that no case has been advanced that would warrant this House agreeing to that sum being paid to the companies, because I would ask them and the House to bear in mind that the railway companies are not the only concerns which were commandeered for War service in our period of emergency. I would ask the House to remember that we commandeered the best and most virile human lives in the country. What was the basis of our compensation? We only paid compensation when disability to earn was proved, and when damage and depreciation was proved. That was the acid test as applied to human life in this country. I suggest that the same moral test should be applied not only to railway companies, but to every concern that
was commandeered by the nation during that period. I therefore wish to suggest that when all these things, which I submit are facts, are allowed for, nothing will justify the House in voting this colossal sum of money to the railway companies. In effect it means this: That the people of this country are to be levied to the tune of almost 10s. a head. Many people who have got to pay that 10s. are people who made greater sacrifices than did the railway companies; they ran bigger risks and greater dangers in defence of the property of the railway companies. Many of these got no compensation whatever. They are to be levied to the tune of 10s. per head in order to reimburse the railway companies for the dangers they had never faced, and the losses they had never sustained.

Colonel GRETTON: I shall endeavour to compress my remarks into the smallest possible space of time, as a good many others desire to speak. One feature of this Bill, to which I wish particularly to draw attention, is that of the Bill in relation to the interests of the traders of this country. The Government and the Minister claim that they have behind this Bill all the railway companies and the traders. The Debate has shown that they have not the united support of the railway companies. It certainly can be proved that all the railway companies, who have addressed circulars to their shareholders, have made large reservations in their support of this Bill, declaring that Amendments of a vital character will need to be carried if this Bill can be accepted by them and their shareholders. In regard to the trades, I venture to say that many of them are only just beginning to be awake to the real meaning of this Bill to the trading community. A great deal of attention has been paid to comparatively minor points—as to continuous mileage, station charges, terminals, and matters of that kind. But those are not the vital matters.
As the House is aware, in the matter of continuous mileage, goods carried by the railway companies are charged so much for the first 10 miles, and so much more for each succeeding factor until the mileage reaches a maximum of 50 miles, and a lower rate is charged for each stage as you proceed to send your goods longer distances. That is called a tapering rate, and that comes into operation when goods
pass from one railway system to another. In that case the new company is entitled to make the same charge commencing a new tapering rate. On all continuous mileage the railway companies would lose very considerably. The consequence is that the Railway Rates Advisory Committee suggest that in the continuous rates which is to be part of the system of rating in the future the charges shall be increased l½ per cent. in order to put the railway companies on the right side. I only bring this forward to show that some of these matters are not so attractive as they seem in the first place. I hope to show before I sit down that there are other matters in which adequate protection is not provided.
In the first place, what does grouping mean to the trader? It is an entire abandonment of the whole system on which the railway business of this country has hitherto been conducted, that is, that there should be abundant facilities for the traders, with alternative routes, and if the rates were not satisfactory or the facilities were not sufficient, that there should, in fact, be competition. It is agreed now that that principle was carried too far. A great deal of unnecessary mileage was built, and in some cases unnecessary accommodation in stations was provided. The complete abandonment of that system means setting up groups of railway monopolies all over the kingdom. That, in fact, is the proposal of the Bill, and the Minister very frankly confesses it. He used a simile. Similes are not always fortunate. He suggested that each railway group should cultivate its own cabbage patch, and not allow any other group to interfere with its cabbages. That is a system of complete monopoly, and I contend that if it is to be applied as suggested in this Bill it will be a great detriment to the traders of this country. The whole system of grouping will have to receive the most careful investigation from the point of view of the traders and the public.
What does the Bill propose? In practice it draws a line down the centre of England from the Scottish border to the Thames. On the right or eastern side, speaking broadly, there is to be one monopoly formed around the North-Eastern Railway Company which in itself already is a monopoly in the finest and richest trading district from the railway point of view. These groups of
railway monopolies, it will be seen, shade off to the east and west to some extent, and although there may be a certain amount of competition, and alternative routes to the north and the south, the practical monopolies are east and west. I would suggest that most careful attention should be paid, not only in the interest of the railway companies—which has already been discussed in this House—but also in the interest of the traders and public, to these groupings of railways. Much has been made of saving under the powers in that direction that will accrue from the groupings and amalgamations. A good many of us in business who have had to deal with these matters of amalgamation—and these include hon. Members—who have had to investigate them very carefully to see whether or not they were advisable economically and so on; as to whether or not in fact they possessed the advantages in savings claimed for them at first sight, have not always found it to be the case. I may say that all the proposed amalgamations which I have had the opportunity of investigating in different branches of business have all whittled down to a comparatively small compass as regards economy; the advantages claimed are only to be found in greater production in other directions and not in less cost of working.
Therefore, in regard to the higher dividends proposed in this Bill, I can only think that experience will show that the promoters and those who rely upon their forecasts will be bitterly disappointed at first. These amalgamations inevitably bring higher expenses, in some cases for many years to come. There is rearrangement of stock and working, which is to produce really efficiency and economy. But the creation of new rolling stock and plant, the rearrangement of control, and matters of that kind involve a very heavy expenditure, and those hon. Members take a limited view who suggest that if there are to be any economies in working expenses they will arise from the comparatively small item of the abolition of a certain number of directors' salaries, which, after all, is a very small consideration. Any considerable saving of working expenses will involve a reduction in the wages bill and of the numbers employed. Every train cut off and every branch-line closed means a reduc-
tion in the number of men employed. From the point of view of the men who anticipate differently there will be a bitter disappointment if the Bill goes forward as now suggested. What is the proposal in the Bill to deal with these great monopolies? The proposal is that the Minister should take continued powers which will enable him effectively to control the operations and relations of these great amalgamated companies, to fix rates and matters of that kind, and to have control—I think I am right in saying—over schemes and methods of standardisation. The great and important powers to be attached to this purpose of standardisation may take years to work out. On every occasion in this Bill the powers of the Minister are to be the controlling factor. I am not in the least objecting to my right hon. Friend, I am talking impersonally of the Minister of Transport. Wherever there is a difficulty the Minister is to be referred to, and if he cannot make up his mind in 14 days, which appears to be the time contemplated in the Bill, he can refer the matter to one or other of the tribunals to be set up by the Bill. These tribunals are not judicial tribunals. The judicial form of tribunal, the Railway and Canal Commission, is pushed into a back place and its long experience is to be used merely in deciding questions of undue preference and other matters of that kind. The real vital business is to be done in the first place by the Rates Advisory Committee, which is apparently to arrange the classification of rates, and then to arrange for tribunals to be set up to decide what charge is to be made under the various headings of that classification and to decide all other questions in relation to rates.
7.0 P.M.
I would call attention to this fact, that the railway companies under this Bill are to be precluded from the ordinary freedom of traders. They can make no bargains, they can make no arrangements, with their customers without referring to the Minister for his approval. If the Minister does not approve he refers to the tribunal, and this tribunal is to have power to charge fees and to charge costs. What is to happen? It must inevitably happen that every time a rate which is not a standard rate is under discussion, or if the standard rate
requires to be altered for any trade, every facility which may be required by the trader has to go before the Minister and, if he refers to the tribunal, some skilled expert is to be employed in order to state the case. Even though it may be agreed between the railway company and the trader, they will have to appear with their experts in order to obtain the approval of the tribunal. What a mad system of carrying on business!—bound and tied hand and foot, no freedom to bargain, no freedom to develop traffic except by the will of the Minister us advised by the tribunal. The constitution of the tribunal is open to grave objection. It is to consist of a legal gentleman, who is to be chairman. There is to be a person skilled in railway business—in fact, a representative of the railway companies—there is to be a trader of experience, and there is to be a panel from which other gentlemen are to be drawn on any particular occasion. We have had some experience in the Rates Advisory Committee of this sort of tribunal. Except for the chairman there was only one gentleman on this tribunal who knew the issues, and that was the representative of the railway companies. The traders' representatives were out of their depth dealing with matters with which they had no previous knowledge, doing their best, but quite inadequate to deal with the legal gentlemen who appeared before them as counsel, or with the railway representative who sat with them on the tribunal. I suggest that the traders' representation on this Rates Tribunal is entirely unsatisfactory. What salary is to be paid? If you are to get a first-class man, thoroughly versed in trade and business and fit to deal and adjudicate upon the multitudinous and important questions which must come before this Rates Tribunal, he must certainly be a full-time man and a firstrate man. You cannot get such a man for a low salary. How are you to pay him? If you are to have men on the panel they will have to be paid adequate fees during the time they are employed. You may get a legal gentleman to preside. You will not get a first-class man with full vigour of earning powers except for a very large salary—one who has spent a long time in his profession and reached a position of eminence, but for whom the period of retirement has come more or less in view. But it is going to be a costly business, costly to
the traders and costly to the railway companies, to appear before this tribunal.
I must pause, if I may be permitted to do so, to call attention to the continued and apparently determined hostility both of the Rates Advisory Committee and of this Bill to exceptional rates. Exceptional rates have been the groundwork for developing trade and the railway business of this country. Railway business has been built up on exceptional rates, yet these exceptional rates are hedged around with such great hostility that the whole position of the trader is imperilled and the business of the railway companies is also imperilled. Let us remember that the railway companies are not in the position they were years ago. Owing to the development of road transport a great deal more can be done over certain distances and certain routes with goods traffic that formerly inevitably had to go by rail. The railway passenger traffic is also imperilled by the same cause. The railway companies will have to fight hard to obtain their traffic. Rates are already too high—112 per cent. over pre-War charges for goods and even the 75 per cent. addition to passenger fares are killing traffic. People who formerly travelled are going by other means than the railway or are travelling less, and in the same way the trader is doing his best to find other means of getting his goods carried. To get back their business the railway companies must find charges that will pay traders to use the railways. The Minister proposes to set up this tribunal which only makes it more difficult for the railway companies to afford any facilities to develop traffic. In fact in this Bill the trader sits down as the victim to be plucked or to be milked for the benefit of the Minister and the railway shareholders. The railways should be allowed to develop their business like any other trade in this country and should not be put under the control of a Minister and bound hand and foot to tribunals.
We have some ground for complaint because of the very short period this House has been allowed for the examination of this Bill. The Bill is being rushed. The House does not realise what is going on, and the public outside realises still less. The inevitable day is the 15th August. It is then that the exceptional powers of the Ministry of Transport Act disappear, and that date is very near.
That date is one of the means of pressure that is being brought to bear on the railway companies. They must have some Bill, they must have some concession, they must have some payment of money, or they will not be able to carry on when the Minister departs on the 15th August. No one can be more disappointed than the Minister himself that more has not been done during the last two years. It is more disappointing still that when the date for the end of control comes along we are paying more than double for railway carriage in this country. Railway companies, in spite of these heavy charges and great burdens on the traders, are in an unsound financial condition, and if they cannot receive a payment on account from the Ministry of Transport for the claims and charges due to them before the 15th August, they will find themselves, or at least many of them will find themselves, in the direst financial stress. I do not think it is quite fair to the House or quite fair to the country that this matter has not been brought forward at a much earlier period of the Session when it might have been examined more closely and conclusions arrived at more fairly.
In conclusion, I have to say that the fatal defects of this Bill, as it appears to me and many others, are that it continues the vicious system of Government control which has so largely failed in the period which has supervened since the end of the War. It continues practical control over the railway industry and over the business and trade of this country, so far as it is connected with the railway, and there is no sufficient safeguard or care for the interests of the general trader or the general public, who ought to be the first consideration and who, I submit, would be the first consideration of the railway companies if they had a free hand. Unless this Bill is most radically amended in Committee, it will, in my opinion, bring disaster on the business of this country.

Rear-Admiral Sir R. HALL: I wish to point out that in regard to the two periods provided for in the Bill there is an interval between them. After the 31st of December, 1922, the railways are to be compulsorily amalgamated. During the whole period of control the 1913 basis of net receipts has been the one accepted. I wish to point out that in Clause 10 the
1913 basis of net receipts is specifically mentioned in paragraph (ii) as follows:
(b) The sum of five million pounds shall be distributed in respect of claims for compensation for any abnormal increase in the ratio of working expenses to receipts for the year nineteen hundred and twenty-two as compared with the ratio of working expenses to receipts for the year nineteen hundred and thirteen.
In this proviso the Government recognise their liability for the expenditure of the railways on ordinary maintenance, but when it comes to the question of amalgamation we find rather a different state of affairs. When you come to Clause 6, there you find a proviso which has to be read in conjunction with Clause 52, and it clearly lays down that the amalgamation shall be calculated on the 1913 basis of the net receipts. That is confirmed by Clause 52. Clause 6 is in line with the procedure after the 15th of August, when control ceases, and it is in line with the procedure after amalgamation. There is, however, a proviso in Clause 6 which entirely stultifies the 1913 basis, because it lays down that the tribunal are not to base their calculations on the net receipts of 1913, but on the problematical receipts of the future. I do not know anyone who can say what the problematical receipts of any railway are going to be in the future, and this gives the tribunal an impossible task, because they have no basis to go upon.
It will involve most extensive and expensive litigation or arbitration before this tribunal to arrive at any basis at which to start from, and it can hardly be the intention of the Government, when it comes to amalgamation, that they should force the companies to be amalgamated on a basis to which they themselves have never worked. It may be said that the Government accept no obligation to put the railways back on a pre-War basis. That may be arguable. The Minister of Transport may say the terms for amalgamation are a domestic matter for the railway companies themselves to settle. I am aware that the Government in their White Papers definitely state that the principle laid down in Clause 6 has been accepted by the railway companies. It was accepted by a majority of votes, but it was inserted afterwards, and at any rate it has never been agreed to by the company which I belong to, and many other companies.
It may be said that this being a domestic matter the Government have no responsibility for it at all. That would be correct if the principle of amalgamation were voluntary, but amalgamation is compulsory under this Bill, and that being so the Ministry cannot divest itself of responsibility for everything that is in this Bill. The point I want to rub in is if the proviso in Clause 6 stands there must be a claim against the Government. That claim must be the difference between the 1913 value and the depreciated value which has taken place during the period of control. We are only too glad to have an opportunity of settling these questions on just and equitable terms, and I ask the Minister of Transport to give us a definite assurance that Clause 6 as it now stands will receive such treatment that justice will be done to these companies which have suffered abnormal increases in their working expenses.

Mr. MacVEAGH: The remarks I intend to make on this Bill will be of a very limited character. I desire to express my cordial agreement with my hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Sir R. Hall) who has just set such an admirable example of brevity as to the operation of Sub-section (1) of Clause 6. This Clause would undoubtedly operate most unfairly upon the weaker railway companies, because it alters the whole basis of valuation. Hitherto we have spoken of the net receipts of railway companies in terms of their net receipts of 1913, but under this Sub-section it is proposed to depart from that practice, and to establish a kind of rule-of-thumb conjecture as to possible future receipts. In the first place no man can tell in the present condition of the railway companies which basis would be the more favourable to the weaker railway companies, whether you value on the net receipts of 1913, or on the possible receipts of the future, because the decision would depend entirely upon the vagaries of the Arbitration Tribunal.
I can imagine discussions proceeding for weeks and months before this tribunal as to the potential future profits of any particular railway. On the old basis the weaker railway companies would at least know where they were, and for that reason I submit that the 1913 test should still be applied. A small reduction in
the lump sum would not seriously affect any of the big railway companies, but it might destroy altogether the dividends of the weaker companies. I would like to know why this new element should be introduced at all. In every other Clause you adhere to the net receipts of 1913, and when you come to amalgamation I would like to know why it is proposed to depart from that standard. This Bill provides that the new rates and fares shall be on such a scale as to provide for each constituent of the amalgamated group such net receipts as will secure for the whole group the net receipts of 1913. Therefore there is no injustice in requiring that the weaker companies should be treated on the basis of 1913. I fail to see why there should be one basis in reference to fixing rates and fares, and an entirely different basis for amalgamation. In the case of the weaker companies the traffic has been diminished more seriously, and the standard of increased wages has increased the working expenses in a greater ratio in the case of the weaker companies than in the case of the bigger companies. The financial equilibrium has been more seriously disturbed in the case of the weaker companies than in the case of the stronger companies. Before this measure goes to the Committee stage, I hope my right hon. Friend, in his reply, will be able to tell us that he intends to give favourable consideration to this subject, and give us an assurance that the weaker companies will be treated with fairness. It is not right to take one set of companies and say that they should be dealt with on the basis of the 1913 net receipts, and to say to the weaker railway companies, "We are going to punish you because there was a war."
I want to say a word or two about the light railways. The protection and development of the light railway system is vital to the future of transport, and I suggest that the interests of the light railways are not adequately safeguarded in this Bill. Invaluable help might be given to the development of light railways by the simple expedient of allowing local rating authorities to guarantee interest or dividend on new light railways which are projected, and of course to include covering guarantees from other local authorities or from local landowners. That would be purely voluntary, and I think local authorities are the best judges
as to the prospect of the success of light railways, and they would be very careful not to mortgage their credit unless there was a reasonable chance of success.
I wish to call attention to Sub-section (2) of Clause 65 which empowers railway companies to take over light railways without their consent. That, I submit, is a very unfair provision. These light railways were constructed under the Light Railways Act which gives them a guarantee that they would not be taken over without their consent. They were sanctioned by a Provisional Order passed through this House which has all the force of an Act of Parliament, and to empower any Government Department or any railway company to take over private property in that fashion and to take over an undertaking that was authorised by an Act of this House itself is I suggest a very tall order indeed, and I hope my right hon. Friend will see his way to abandon Sub-section (2) of Clause 65.
Clause 8, Sub-section (2), provides that the Commissioners forming the Tribunal shall be Sir Henry Babington Smith, Sir William Plender, and Mr. George John Talbot. With regard to Sir William Plender and Mr. Talbot they know something about railways, but Sir Henry Babington Smith knows nothing about railways and he is to be the Chairman. It would be more rational to appoint as Chairman of the Tribunal one of the gentlemen who know something about railways. Sir Henry Babington Smith is a distinguished ex-Secretary of the General Post Office, and he is, I believe, Chairman of the National Bank of Turkey, but that does not make him an authority on railways. Indeed, the Post Office has convinced everybody of late that it knows so little about business methods that it is not a recommendation to anybody that this gentleman was formerly Secretary of the General Post Office. I have no doubt from his distinguished public career that he is a public servant of great ability and great capacity, but I do suggest that it would be more appropriate that one of the two Commissioners who understand railway problems through and through should be Chairman of it. Finally, I suggest to my right hon. Frend that he should confer with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and put himself in a position to make some announcement with regard to the continued exemption beyond 1922 of railway
companies and of all public utility companies from the operations of the Corporations Tax. They are exempted from the Corporations Tax, I believe, till the end of 1922, but I suggest that all public utility companies ought to be permanently exempted. If my right hon. Friend could carry his persuasion further, and induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer to drop the tax altogether, as he has dropped the Excess Profits Duty, he would find it a very popular decision. But if that cannot be done, I appeal to the Minister of Transport to bring his influence to bear upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to the remission of this tax beyond the period ending 1922.

Major BARNES: During the War the Government found it necessary to take possession of and control two of our great industries, the mining industry and the railway industry. Since the Armistice it has been their business to determine how and when and under what conditions they should relinquish possession and decontrol these industries. The task has been undertaken by different members of the Government, and they have employed different methods. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, and later the Prime Minister, have dealt with the mining industry. The Minister of Transport is dealing with the railway industry. When we see what they have done with the mining industry, and when we see what he is likely to do with the railway industry, I think, on comparison, all the advantages are with the scheme proposed by the Minister of Transport, and we can really only estimate his success by comparing it with their failure. They made no real effort to bring owners and men together, they made no provision for getting over that very awkward period between the end of the War and the return of normal times, and we can only estimate the importance of the great constructive effort which the Minister of Transport is making when we realise what would be the feelings of the House and the country if there were a Minister of Mines who could come down here with a Mines Bill which had behind it the support of the Mining Association and the Miners' Federation, and which had been agreed to by the great business communities of the country, and could assure us that under the terms of that Bill we had before us the prospect of something like indus-
trial peace until 1923. Such a situation, had it arrived, would have been a great relief, and one of the greatest causes of rejoicing which this country has had for many a long day. Consideration of this Bill from that standpoint does give us a true perspective, and does show us what we have to consider in this Debate. I say that without committing myself in any way to agreement with everything in the Bill. There are many points in it which are very substantial Committee points, and after the Minister has got a Second Reading—whether he gets his Bill or not without a Division, and I hope he will get it without a Division—I have no doubt he will have a very useful and perhaps a prolonged period in Committee, with the assistance of Members of all parties in the House, in shaping a really useful Measure.
I cannot help expressing my regret that I do not feel myself able to support the Amendment put forward by my friends who sit round me on this side of the House, not because I am not in sympathy with their aims, for I am in sympathy with their aims, and I desire public ownership of the railways as intensely as they do, but because I do not possess their fears. If I believed, as they say in this Amendment, that this Bill failed to provide for public ownership of railways and would prejudice their future acquisition, I should not be supporting it. I have been told by friends on this side of the House that this will prevent nationalisation, and others who have spoken have thought the Bill is going to bring it about, but I think that, while it is not nationalising the railways at the present time, it is not imposing any substantial, indeed any, barrier to their acquisition by the State in the future. It would be perfectly true to say that this Bill fails to effect public ownership and control of the railways, but it is not correct to say that it fails to provide for it. What is it doing? It is amalgamating two hundred odd companies into six. The very essence of public ownership is one financial unit, and six financial units are nearer to one than two hundred, and to that extent the Bill is really making provision for the future public ownership. That, I realise, would be an objection to the Bill in the minds of some Members, but to my mind it is one of its advantages. Then it is feared that this Bill is going to prejudice the future acquisition of railways by the State on a fair and economical basis. Again, if I
thought that, I would not support it. I am one of those who believe in the public ownership of railways, and that they should be acquired at a fair price as soon as the people of this country are ready to acquire them. I do not find anything in this Bill which is going to prevent that, but, on the other hand, there is a great deal in it which will make that problem simpler when it arises in the future.
In the first place, the subsidiary companies have got to be acquired by the constituent companies, and then you have got the constituent companies which have to be amalgamated into amalgamated companies. The fact that these financial undertakings are to be carried out as they are to be carried out under the Bill is one of the great guarantees that we are going to have something like a fair valuation of the railways, and that the constituent companies will not absorb the subsidiary companies on anything but fair and equitable terms, though they will endeavour to drive as good a bargain as they can, and we may be sure that when the constituent companies come to amalgamate the amalgamation will be on terms equitable to each company. If there is any possibility of these amalgamations taking place on terms inequitable to the general community that is something we should examine into and safeguard in Committee. I think there is a great advantage in the position which establishes the net aggregate receipts as the basis on which the companies are to be absorbed in the amalgamation. It appears to me to be a proceeding very analogous to what has taken place with regard to tithe. In place of the fluctuating income which the tithe owner used to derive, his income is commuted for a sum which is not a fixed sum, but on a fixed basis, and as far as I understand the Bill what is going to take place is that the whole of the capital invested in the railway companies prior to the War is going to be treated as something having a fixed income, and that is the income of the 1913 net receipts. Whatever may happen in the future, the only question that can arise will be on what terms that income is to be acquired. If the State ever really does acquire the whole of the railways the problem will be on what terms that annual sum is to be paid for, whether it is to be treated as a capital sum, or as an annuity, or in any other form. I think my Friends on this
side may take it that there are plenty of precedents in regard to dealing with matters of that kind which will amply safeguard the State in the future, should it ever desire to acquire the railways.
Then the Amendment says that the Bill provides for the payment to the railway companies of a sum far in excess of the amount due to them in consequence of temporary State control. As a member of the Colwyn Committee I am interested in the provision made for the railway companies, and if I thought the payment being made here was a payment made purely and solely in relationship to the railway agreements held by the railway companies I should take objection to it. On the Colwyn Committee my view was that the proper sum to be paid to the railway companies was the sum they were entitled to under the agreements less any amount that was due, not to control, but due to circumstances of the War. I joined with my colleagues in a series of recommendations which we said would, in our opinion, lead to that claim being reduced to an insignificant amount. Nobody can say that the £60,000,000 in this Bill and the £46,000,000 they have in hand is an insignificant amount, and in so far as those sums are in the Bill and have been paid, it cannot be said that a settlement has been made on the lines laid down in the Colwyn Report. But I do not regard this sum as being entirely or closely related to the claims made by the railway companies under their agreements. I regard this sum as the amount which is being paid for the purpose of arriving at a settlement of this railway question and for carrying the whole question over this present abnormal period into a period of something like comparative peace, and from that point of view I do not disagree with him. To avert anything like a similar catastrophe to what has taken place in the mining world the sum which is to be paid cannot be regarded as excessive.
As far as the Bill provides protection for the general public, I attach a very great deal of value to the provision of statistics, suitable statistics, but I think, in addition, it would be necessary to see in Committee, or later in other legislation, that alternative methods of transport are fully developed and released from the control of the railway companies. Nothing more effective in that way could be done than to give support
to the case which the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Neville Chamberlain) has so much at heart, and that is the release of the inland waterways of the country from railway control, and the making of due provision for seeing that the seaborne trade, coasting trade, gets a fair traffic. The Minister for Transport has already done a very great deal with regard to roads. My own view with regard to roads is that our present system penalises road traffic by imposing heavy motor duties, and is wrong. These are all matters in which we must look for real competition to replace the competition which the present system of pooling will undoubtedly diminish. I do not regard this Bill as a final settlement of all the problems that will arise in the railway world. It is certain, as far as capital and labour are concerned, that we shall have to deal with a great many vexed questions. But it is a great step towards a settlement, and, above all, it is a great advantage that it is going to save us from an extension of the great industrial dispute, that it is going to give us a period of breathing time, and to carry us over the gulf between war conditions and normal conditions. I think that the Minister of Transport may be congratulated on a measure which is not a party measure in any sense, but a great effort which, in my opinion, if the real interest and attention of this House be given to it, with a regard solely to the public interest, may be of vast advantage.

Mr. MARRIOTT: Everyone will agree at any rate upon one point, namely, that this Debate has followed a very remarkable course. The Attorney-General, in his exceedingly brilliant but as I thought somewhat irrelevant speech, said that the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) stood in a position of lonely eminence on this question. I have listened to very nearly the whole of the Debate since it started on Thursday last, and, with the exception of the speech which we have just heard, I do not recall a single speech in the whole course of the Debate—except, of course, those that came from the Ministerial Bench—which gave anything in the nature of a cordial approval to the Bill. From every quarter of the House there has
been—from very different points of view and from very different motives—a fusillade of attack upon the Bill and upon the Ministry. Some hon. Members have expressed themselves in favour of the principle of the Bill, although they were very critical of every single provision which the Bill contains. I have done my best to make some study of the Bill, and I have been anxious to discover what the principle of the Bill really is, but the only conclusion at which I can arrive is that the principle of the Bill is a conspicuous lack of principle.
I said just now that the Bill has been attacked from every quarter of the House, and on very opposite grounds. The attack was begun in the very reasonable speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Miles Platting (Mr. Clynes). He attacked the Bill on the ground that it was not true nationalisation. My right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), on the other hand, attacked it because it was a bastard nationalisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) attacked it on the ground that it did not provide for syndicalisation or, as I think he put it, for guild socialism. It has been attacked all round by the Members from Scotland on the ground that it does injustice to Scotland; and it was attacked just now by an hon. Member from Ireland on the ground that it does injustice to the smaller companies. It has been attacked by the hon. Members for Hull on the ground that it does injustice to Hull, and it has been attacked by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) and by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton), on the ground that it will work a gross injustice to the traders of this country. I am not quite sure on what ground my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Stevens) attacked the Bill the other night, but my impression is that he was more concerned to attack the Great Northern Bailway Company than the Bill itself. But this is not the place for an answer to that attack.
I admit that it is quite possible that my own views, which are generally—though not entirely—opposed to the Bill, may be to some extent biased by the fact that I am a proprietor and a railway director; but I would ask the House to
believe that I have made a very honest, or, at any rate, a very strenuous, attempt to consider the Bill primarily from the point of view of the interests of the State and of the community. After all, those interests are primary and paramount over all other interests. Of course I do not mean to suggest that there are not other interests to be considered. There are. There is the interest of the employés of the railways—a very important interest which should have every consideration. I believe there are some 700,000 of those employés, and they are entitled to the highest consideration. Then there are the interests, as everyone will admit, of the proprietors—the people by whose thrift and self-sacrifice the railways of this country have been entirely constructed. I know it is rather unfashionable to suggest that their interests are entitled to consideration, but they also, after all, form a very considerable body of electors. I do not know exactly how many there are of them. I do not think it has ever been ascertained, and probably could not be ascertained without rather laborious research. But the number of holdings has been accurately ascertained, and I fancy that the figures will surprise a good many people who have not given much thought to this subject.
The aggregate of holdings of ordinary shares in the railway companies is 418,636, of which over 62 per cent. represent individual holdings of less than £500 apiece, while a further 80,000, or 19 per cent., represent holdings of over £500 but less than £1,000. Over 80 per cent. of the ordinary shareholders, therefore, hold less than £1,000 apiece. Besides these there are some 408,000 preferential holdings, of which, again, over 50 per cent. represent less than £500 apiece. One may take it, therefore, that the total of ordinary and preferential holdings combined is over 827,000. Adding to these the holders of debenture stocks, I think it would probably be within the mark to say that there are over 1,000,000 holdings of railway stocks and debentures in this country. That is an interest which is entitled on the mere ground of numbers, and on other grounds as well, to consideration, because, after all, those shareholders do possess certain legal rights, and you cannot ignore those rights with impunity, or cancel them without grave detriment to the well-being of the
community at large. On the very lowest grounds of political expediency, you cannot play fast and loose with legal rights without inflicting a blow on the whole fabric—in some sense a substantial fabric, but in another sense a very delicate fabric—of national credit. I believe, and I do not think that anyone will controvert it, that at no moment in the history of this country was there ever a time when it was more absolutely essential to industrial reconstruction to have an abundant supply of relatively cheap capital. That is essential in the interests of the manual workers, and it is essential in the interests of the community at large.
There is another interest to be considered in this matter, namely, that of the traders and of the travellers, for whom my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Burton spoke so well; but I repeat that it is the interest of the community at large that must be regarded as paramount. Attempting, as I shall, to consider the Bill for the moment mainly, though not exclusively, from that point of view, it may be asked why I regard it, as I do, with considerable apprehension. I have two reasons for that, one of which applies to the Bill as a whole and the other to particular provisions in the Bill. I ask myself, in the first place, was there really any necessity for a Bill of this elaborate description? I do not deny that there was a necessity for a Bill, but here we have a Bill of six parts, 75 Clauses, and seven Schedules, dealing with the grouping of railways, with railway services, railway rates, wages and conditions of service, accounts and statistics. My first objection to the Bill is that its provisions, taken in their entirety, constitute a very serious extension of State interference and of State control. So far as that is so, and I think it will not be denied, the Bill does run counter to one of the strongest—shall I say prejudices, or shall I say convictions?—of the moment. If the experience of the War period in this country proved anything—I mean, of course, in the economic and industrial sphere—it demonstrated conclusively the impracticability of the collectivist ideal, the ideal of nationalisation.
The only thing that the people of this country ardently desire to-day is, I believe, to be let alone to manage their own business, to order their own lives, with the least possible interference from
outside. Yet here we have a Bill the whole object of which is to establish a permanent principle of control, and to impose in perpetuity upon a great industry or a great service the fetters which were justified only by a great national crisis and a very urgent national necessity. My first objection is to this perpetuation of the principle of control. How is that control to be exercised? In the first place we have the Ministry of Transport. Of the various authorities set up or continued under the Bill, the Ministry of Transport is, in a sense, the least important, although by far the most pervasive. It survives to impose upon the companies—this is under Clause 67—a particular system of account keeping, and to receive accounts and returns. Some of those statistics, I admit, are of value, but many of them I know to be absolutely valueless, and yet it is costing the railway companies at the present moment £500,000 a year to compile them. Even if those statistics were regarded as essential, there is, in my opinion, no earthly reason why a very elaborate and expensive Government Department should be retained in being in order to receive them. That function might perfectly well be transferred, and in Committee I hope to be able to propose that it shall be transferred, to the Board of Trade, for the Board of Trade has other functions under the Bill, chiefly in regard to applications by public authorities. But besides the Ministry of Transport and the Board of Trade you have the old Railway and Canal Commission, with power to make orders as to the working of the railways, and much more important than any of them, you have your new amalgamations tribunal and your new rates tribunal, both of which are to be set up in the supposed interest of the community, and both of which are to be paid for at the expense of the railway companies. These departments, boards and tribunals in the aggregate constitute a very large and, as I believe, an excessive measure of interference and control. But I hope the House will allow me to guard against one possible misapprehension. I do not for an instant suggest—I hope I am not so foolish—that you can treat a railway company as we treat a cotton mill or a glass factory. The railway companies have been constructed by
private capital and they belong in a proprietary sense to those who constructed them, but they have been constructed under statutory permission and they have been endowed by the Legislature with statutory powers, and that being so I acknowledge entirely that they stand in a somewhat special relation to the State, partly as semi-monopolistic undertakings and partly because they offer a commodity which is in universal demand. But do not these arguments if they are put forward prove too much for the present Bill? Are they not rather arguments in favour of the Bill which was brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby and which represents, as I understand, the considered views of the Labour party, and offers, as it seems to me, a logical solution of this problem? There is one other logical solution, and that is to hand back the railways to their proprietors under such conditions as will restore their dividend-earning capacity which the State, as I submit, has during this period of occupation and control done a very great deal to destroy. For either of these solutions, either the nationalising solution or what I may call the individualistic solution, there is a very great deal to be said.
8.0 P.M.
If I had to consider this problem solely from the point of view of the interests of the railway proprietors, I should be very strongly tempted to close with the Bill of the right hon. Member for Derby in preference to this. I do not say the terms of the right hon. Gentleman's Bill are over generous, but they are not predatory. There is no talk or thought of what people think of as confiscation. From several points of view I think that Bill is preferable to the one we are discussing to-night. For this Bill has many of the disadvantages of nationalisation, without the compensating advantages. No one can say this Bill is not in a sense predatory. In the first place, there is a provision with regard to compulsory amalgamation. The railways were constructed by their proprietors as separate undertakings. Many of them would desire to amalgamate, but by this Bill you are compelling them to do so whether they desire it or whether they do not, and the State has no right to impose this compulsory amalgamation, and still less to make the proprietors of the railway pay for a tribunal which they have not asked and
they do not want. Then you have a provision, which may again prove to be predatory, in regard to the compulsory standardisation of plant, equipment, and so on. No one denies, as far as I am aware, that what is called standardisation is an ideal at which we ought to aim, but it cannot be attained at all rapidly without inflicting very undeserved loss upon the proprietors. Then, by Clause 12, power is conferred, in this case on the Railway and Canal Commissioners, to order certain alterations in the working of the railways as regards services, facilities and conveniences. On that point the Attorney-General was not entirely accurate in his submission. He told the House that the revenues of the railway companies are protected under this Clause by an appeal to the Railway and Canal Commissioners. As I read it there is protection as regards capital expenditure to a certain extent, but I find no protection as regards expenditure on account of revenue.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): I understood the Attorney-General to refer to the guarantee of the revenue on the basis, not of a guaranteed revenue in terms, but of standardisation of the revenue on the 1913 basis.

Mr. MARRIOTT: I thought that was a separate point. I thought there were two separate points made by the Attorney-General. But I pass from that to notice the point made by the hon. and gallant Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes) in regard to the compensation of £60,000,000. That is an offer which I think will have to be subjected to very close scrutiny if and when we get into Committee. It is a very complicated matter, and, unless I misapprehend the whole import of this Clause, it seems to me to be open to very grave criticism, and, in particular, to two criticisms, first, that it is, as I think, inadequate in amount—of course, there is a difference of opinion on that point—but also because it seems to me to be offered in a very objectionable, I was going to say almost a commercially immoral manner, for part of it, so it is suggested, shall be spent in the payment of dividend. I cannot comprehend that suggestion in the Bill, and, in particular, I find myself unable to understand the penal proviso—for it is a penal proviso—that whether it is so spent
or not, 50 per cent. of the aggregate amount of compensation shall be treated as income, whether it is spent as income or not, and shall be subjected to Income Tax. Then, worst of all, this lump sum is not offered as a settlement of all mutual claims as between the railway companies and the State. The companies are to accept it in full satisfaction of all their claims against the State, but by accepting it are to debar themselves from the ordinary legal remedies secured to them by the Statute of 1871, and possibly by other Statutes as well. But, on the other hand, the State is still to remain, as I understand it, entirely free to prosecute its claims against the companies in the courts. A more preposterous case of "heads I win, and tails you lose" was never conceived outside the realm of burlesque.
I do not wish to trespass on the time of the House, otherwise I should have something to say in regard to the exceedingly detailed provisions in regard to rates and charges. But I think that is really rather a matter for Committee stage. I turn to the provisions in Part IV, which deal with wages and conditions of service. The original scheme of the Bill contemplated the presence of representatives of the employés on the directorial boards. Speaking only for myself, I should have welcomed their presence on those boards provided they were elected, like other directors, by duly qualified proprietors, that is to say, by the people to whom the railways belong, and to whom nominally this Bill proposes to restore them. I ask whether there would be really any practical difficulty in this. The right hon. Gentleman the member for Derby claimed the other day that he is the largest shareholder in English railways. I would ask him whether he cannot use that powerful position to promote the candidature of his nominees to the board. It would, no doubt, involve some little alteration of the rules of procedure, but that surely is not beyond the ingenuity either of the right hon. Gentleman or of the Committee to which the Bill will be referred.
For the moment, however, I am only concerned to demonstrate that from more than one point of view this Bill seems to me inferior to that put forward by the right hon. Gentleman. On the one hand,
it devolves the whole financial responsibility upon the existing proprietors, while it hands back to them a damaged property with meagre compensation, and then, having reimposed the whole financial responsibility on the shareholders, it takes the management of their own property out of the hands of the shareholders in no fewer than eight several ways: first of all by the power of grouping and amalgamation, secondly the working of their undertakings as regards railway services, facilities, and conveniences, thirdly as regards standardisation, fourthly as regards co-operative working, the common user of railway stock and so on, fifthly as regards pooling arrangements, sixthly as regards power to fix rates, seventhly as regards wages and conditions of service, and lastly as regards accounts. It seems to me impossible to avoid the question whether in view of all these restrictions, controls and imposition it would not be simpler, fairer, and more just to buy out the existing proprietors altogether. I think there is a very great deal to be said for that solution of the question, and if I were considering this matter solely from the point of view of the proprietors I think I should answer that question in the affirmative. But, to my mind, the interests of the State in this matter are paramount over all other interests, and, from the point of view of the interest of the State, the nationalisation solution is, in my opinion, the worst of all. This Bill, so my right hon. Friend told us, is bastard nationalisation. I agree that it contains none of the advantages of nationalisation and embodies many of its worst features, and unless it is drastically amended, as I hope it will be, it ought not to receive the support either of those who are the guardians of the just and legal rights of the proprietors, still less of those who are concerned for those larger national interests which are so deeply and so vitally involved.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: I desire to deal with some of the proposals of this Bill as they affect Scotland, and in doing so I shall endeavour to argue the case as concisely as possible, without any wealth of detail. I approach this subject from the standpoint of Scottish traders, Scottish agriculturists, Scottish railway employés, Scottish railway shareholders, and the Scottish travelling public.
In whatever order you place these interests they are equally concerned in the continued prosperity and financial stability of the Scottish railways. Viewed from the standpoint of the great bulk of the classes of persons I have enumerated in Scotland, there are many provisions in this Bill which give rise to feelings of profound misgivings and dismay. The particular parts of the Bill with which I propose to deal, and which give rise to the greatest disquiet in Scotland, are the proposals in the Schedule as regards grouping.
I listened to the speech of the Minister of Transport on Thursday. He is fully aware of the anxious state of public opinion in Scotland with regard to the grouping proposals which have been put forward, but it was not until the end of his speech that he made reference to Scotland. I carry my mind back to an occasion four or five years before the War when there was a discussion on the Bight to Work Bill, and an hon. Member representing the Labour party made a very eloquent speech in favour of the Bill. Then there arose from behind him an hon. Member who said, "I have listened to the arguments in the middle of the speech of the hon. Member, and they have not convinced me. Then the hon. Member came to his peroration, which contained everything that even he did not dare to attempt to prove by argument in the middle of his speech."To my mind there is a striking analogy between the two occasions, and the two perorations. It was not until the peroration of the Minister that he made any allusion to the Scottish case. He said that he thought it would probably be for the convenience of the House if the Government dealt with the case of the Scottish companies in the course of the Debate. Why? If he has a good case to put forward in respect to the Scottish companies and the Scottish grouping, why should he not put it forward at the beginning of the Debate instead of leaving it to the end?

Dr. MURRAY: It should be in the fore-front of the Debate.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: He said that he could not find out exactly what the Scottish companies want. The hon. Member for Camlachie (Sir H. Mackinder) and myself have been asked by the Scottish Members to give expression in this Debate
to what the Scottish Members and the Scottish community generally want. I have said that the grouping proposals have given rise to great anxiety in Scotland. What, briefly, is the history of this matter? At the end of last year what is commonly called a White Paper was issued, and in that White Paper the Scottish railway companies were to be grouped by themselves in a single group. The Scottish railway companies, the Scottish trading community and the Scottish railway shareholders gave very careful consideration to the grouping proposals contained in the White Paper, and they were unanimous in their opposition to them. I might quote at great length the arguments adduced by various bodies in Scotland against the proposals in the White Paper. They were opposed by the Chambers of Commerce of Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Greenock, Leith, and the South of Scotland. There was a very important meeting at Glasgow in February of this year, consisting of representatives of the 17 larger towns, the Convention of Royal Burghs, and several county councils. All the Scottish iron and steel manufacturers were present, comprising the ironmasters, the steel makers, and the bar-iron manufacturers in Scotland. They were all in opposition to the proposals in the White Paper.
The demand put forward by these various bodies was that if compulsory grouping was to take place it should be on sound financial lines, and that, so far as Scotland was concerned, that could only be achieved by grouping the Scottish railways longitudinally with the English companies, with which in the past they have been most closely associated. Scotland is not alone in that demand. I propose to quote briefly from a letter sent to the Minister by the Railway Companies Association on the 8th December, 1920. In this letter the following statement appears:
If, as the Minister has indicated, the grouping of railways is a fundamental principle of the Government's scheme, and the railway companies will have no alternative but to group in some form or other, the Association are of the opinion that in determining the scheme of grouping, one of the principal considerations should be the securing of financial equilibrium within each group.
The letter goes on to state:
In order to secure that financial equilibrium, the Association suggests an alternative scheme.
What is that alternative scheme? In the alternative scheme the Caledonian, the Glasgow and South Western and the Highland line were associated with the North Western, Midland and other railway companies, while the North British and the Great North of Scotland were associated with the Great Central, the Great Northern, the Great Eastern and the North Eastern. I want to draw the attention of the House to this fact. This grouping was approved by all the companies' members of the Railway Companies' Association, with the exception of three, the North Eastern, the Hull and Barnsley, and the Barry Company. The Minister has given no reason why the proposals put forward by the majority of the Railway Companies' Association were not acted upon in this Bill. It is no defence to say, as has been suggested by the Minister, that the Association was not unanimous, or that it was lukewarm. The proposals were the proposals of the majority. There are many momentous decisions taken in this House by majorities. Most majorities are luke-warm, in fact it is only the minorities that are enthusiastic; but the Government acts on the decision of the majorities none the less. Time and again the Minister in his speech justified the inclusion of this provision or that provision in the Bill because, as he said, it was the decision of a majority.
What I ask the Minister—and I hope we shall have a reply in this Debate—is why in the case of the Scottish grouping he has not accepted the opinions of the majority of the Railway Companies' Association? He may say that these were the opinions in December last. What are the opinions now? There was issued this month, May, a memorandum of the views of the majority of the companies' members in the Railway Companies' Association, and, quite contrary to what the Minister may have led the House to infer in his peroration—I do not wish to accuse him of misleading the House—the majority of the Railway Companies' Association is still a majority. They refer in this memorandum to the grouping of the Scottish companies, and they say:
It will be remembered that the Ministry of Transport issued a White Paper indicating their general ideas. To this the Railway Companies' Association responded with a letter signed by the Chairman, in which he suggests that a more effective scheme of grouping than that proposed in the White
Paper might lead to including the Scottish railways in the principal English groups. This was commended as being a scheme more calculated to establish fixed equilibrium, and the Scottish companies concurred in the recommendations; but the Minister rejected that part of the proposals, and has formed the Scottish companies into two groups.
I hope that the Minister will support their proposals in this regard when he comes to reply in the course of this Debate. But the Minister has to a certain extent changed the proposal that was submitted in the White Paper. He now proposes that the Scottish railways should be separated into two groups. If the arguments in favour of the one Scottish group hold water, namely, the elimination of competition and the saving of expense in administration and working, then those arguments must fall to the ground by dividing the railways into two Scottish groups. In other words, he can only support the two Scottish groups for reasons totally different from those for which he supports one group. The Scottish demand is the grouping of the Scottish railways with the English railways on parallel lines.
This is a very serious matter so far as Scotland is concerned, and the House will forgive me if I explain briefly why the bulk of Scottish opinion desires longitudinal grouping with the English lines. First it is necessary to emphasise the changes that have been brought about during the period of control. The standardisation of wages and hours on a national basis has placed a very heavy burden upon Scottish companies. It is admitted by the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, and is not open to dispute, that owing to geographical and economic conditions in Scotland the burden is much heavier in the case of Scottish companies than in the case of some of the English companies and that the working expenses of the Scottish companies have been increased in a much greater ratio than those of the English railways. I merely quote one set of figures. The increase in working cost in 1920 as compared with 1913 on eight English railways was 227 per cent. On five Scottish railways the increase was 291 per cent. With the uneconomic burdens imposed on the Scottish railways and imposed, not with the assent of the Scottish companies, but by the executive from the outside, how are the Scottish railways, standing by themselves,
if and when this Bill is passed, to maintain their financial equilibrium, and consequently a good train service at reasonable rates and fares? That is the point. The Minister may say that the answer to that question is contained in this Bill. I differ from him. This Bill provides a rates tribunal which is to fix rates and fares in order to produce a standard revenue for each of the companies, calculated roughly on the 1913 dividends. It is obvious to the meanest intelligence that the rates and fares which are quite sufficient for companies operating in the rich North-Eastern or Midland districts of England are insufficient to provide the standard revenue for the poorer districts through which the railways operate in Scotland.
One other consideration with regard to rates. The Bill proceeds on the assumption that it is possible to increase rates and fares up to any amount in order to produce a standard revenue. This is a fundamental fallacy so far as Scotland is concerned. It leaves out of account the special conditions of Scotland. Scottish railways have a much shorter average length of haul than English railways. The density of traffic is much less. Nearly all the important centres of traffic are on or near the sea, and the Scottish railways are exposed to the competition of coasting steamers to a greater degree than is the case in England. The competition of sea and road traffic has been proceeding at a much greater rate than was previously anticipated. Present rates and fares are bringing about a transference of traffic from the railways at an increasing rapid rate. I might quote figures to show that the increase of rates during the period of control have been a very heavy burden upon Scotch trade, and the present rates and fares appear to be as high as the traffic can possibly bear. If what I have said describes correctly the situation so far as Scotland is concerned, and I believe it does, then I apprehend that one of several consequences must follow if the Scottish grouping which is proposed in this Bill is adhered to. Either the Scottish rates and fares will have to be raised above the level of English rates and fares, which will prejudice Scottish traders in competition with similar English traders, or if that does not happen, the attempt to increase rates in order to produce the standard revenue
may not only not produce the standard revenue but actually decrease the revenue. In either event the results to Scottish trade, Scottish railways and the Scottish community generally, must be very serious indeed, if not disastrous.
Certain figures have passed between the Minister and between Scottish Members and the Scottish railway companies. Those figures have been challenged by the Minister, but the Minister has never given any figures of his own to the Scottish companies to support the argument that he produces against the Scottish figures. The Minister may say in his reply that Scotland has failed to prove her case for special treatment. If that reply were made, I would remind the Minister that he himself met the Scottish Railway Chairmen on 20th November, and admitted the special circumstances in regard to Scotland. They were also admitted by Sir George Beharrell, a very distinguished official of the Ministry of Transport, in the "Scotsman" recently, when issuing a memorandum explaining this Bill, and he said that the position of Scotland was undoubtedly difficult. I would ask the Minister, where in this Bill is there anything to deal either with the special circumstances to which the Minister himself made allusion or to the undoubted difficulty which was referred to by Sir George Beharrell? It has been suggested that if the Scottish railways are grouped with the English railways, the Scottish traders may suffer by a rise in rates to the English level. That is one of the arguments used in the explanatory memorandum. This aspect of the question has been very carefully considered by the Scottish trading community, and what they fear is, that unless the Scottish-English allied grouping takes place Scottish rates will rise far above the English level. That question was considered not only last December, when the White Paper proposals were issued, but quite recently. I could quote to the House the personal view of many Scottish traders on the subject. On the question of rates, Mr. J. A. Mitchell, who headed a deputation to this House, said:
The Minister of Transport has quoted figures only in a general way. We are not satisfied that there is anything in those figures which will lead us to change our view. We feel that if the Minister has figures which have an important bearing on the subject he ought to come out in the open with them and allow them to be subject to criticism.
There have been great meetings held in Glasgow, in Edinburgh, in Aberdeen, and in Inverness within the last week, all of them having carefully considered the proposals of the Minister and all of them protesting against those proposals and asking for the longitudinal grouping for which I am asking. I am told there has been weakening on the part of traders; there has been no weakening at all. A prominent trader who is a friend of mine writes:
So far as I know there is no weakening among the traders. They do not accept Geddes's statement, and until he puts forward figures to disprove the estimates of the Scottish railways, they will, I think, stand to their former position of opposition to the grouping proposed.
I think I have said enough to show what Scotland wants. Scottish railways do not wish to be excluded from this Bill. Let me be clear on that point. What they require is fair treatment so far as grouping is concerned. They require the longitudinal grouping with the English lines. I hope the Minister of Transport will take to heart the remarkable unanimity of Scotland in this respect. Expression to it has been given from every quarter of the House. The right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) assured the Minister that Scotland was on the warpath in the matter. Then there was the speech of the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) and that of the hon. Member for Camlachie. An independent witness, the "Times," said:
As far as we can gather, the whole strength of public opinion in Scotland is against the Minister of Transport.
I could have elaborated other objections to certain provisions of the Bill, including the £60,000,000 which ought not to be in the Bill. The majority of the railway companies have not been able to make up their claims; no time was allowed for the examination and preparation of claims by the individual companies. Then there are the needlessly extensive powers of the tribunals, the unnecessary obstacles to the speedy adjustment of special rates between companies and traders, the continuation of a large measure of control in the Ministry of Transport, the interference with the control of capital expenditure, and, so far as Scotland is concerned, failure to provide a Rates Tribunal to hear Scottish questions in Scotland, or for appeal to the Court of Session. All those are matters which will form the
subject of special Amendments in Committee. I, therefore, strongly urge once more the most favourable consideration for the grouping proposals we put forward with the united opinion of Scotland behind them. In this matter all that Scotland demands is fair treatment. She asks that no more and claims that no less should be meted out to her.

Colonel LAMBERT WARD: I would not have attempted to intervene in this Debate, and would not have persevered in that attempt in the way I have done, had I not been specially asked by the constituency I represent to oppose this Bill and to lay before the House the case of Hull. Unless this Measure is drastically amended in Committee, at any rate so far as certain schedules are concerned, Hull stands to lose advantages which her citizens worked and struggled hard to obtain forty years ago, advantages which they have struggled equally hard to maintain on more than one occasion since then. Hull is not notorious for its unanimity in matters political or municipal. At the present time Hull is represented in this House by one Coalition Liberal, one Independent Liberal, one Coalition Unionist and one Independent Unionist, with the result that our votes on almost every occasion cancel one another. In this particular case, however, Hull speaks as one man. The citizens are absolutely unanimous in their opposition to this Bill, and for one reason only—because of the grouping of the railways and because their own particular railway is to be grouped with the North Eastern Railway. To show the unanimity which exists in Hull regarding this Measure, I have only to state that the Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber of Trade, and a large variety of other organisations have passed resolutions condemning the proposal, and have requested that their representatives in this House should oppose it. In addition to that, practically every association of traders has done the same, such as the Association of Shipowners and the Association of Fruit Traders. Needless to say, this unanimous opposition has not been raised for nothing.
For many years before 1880 Hull was in the unfortunate position of being served by a railway company which deliberately neglected the city's interests. From 1845, when I believe the railway
was opened, until 1880, Hull was served by the North Eastern Railway Company. For some reason or other, the North Eastern Railway Company thought fit to neglect Hull in favour of the ports further north. In addition to that, traders had reason to complain of the autocratic attitude adopted by the officials of the company. I do not know why the North Eastern Company starved Hull in favour of Newcastle, but I have been told that the directors of the time had personal and private interests further north which led them to develop Newcastle at the expense of Hull. The fact remains that for many years Hull had no suitable railway facilities whatever, and when traders went to interview the officials of the company on the subject they were received, I am told, with the scantiest courtesy. At last, weary to death with the lack of facilities, they decided to have their own railway, and they promoted the Hull and Barnsley Railway Company. I do not go so far as to say that the traders and Corporation of Hull were alone in the promotion of that company, but I do claim that had it not been for the support, financial and otherwise, of the Hull Corporation, it would never have come into existence. They assisted in the promotion of the company, firstly, by investing £100,000 in its ordinary shares, secondly, by selling to the company the very best available site for a dock on the river front, and, thirdly, by giving evidence and using all their influence, in its support. The objects of the corporation were not financial in any way. They were simply to foster the trade of the port and break the railway monopoly which existed at the time and was in the possession of the North Eastern Company, the town having suffered much through being only served by one line. In return for this support the Hull Corporation were accorded certain facilities and favours, and they were given a right of veto on any proposed amalgamation between the North Eastern and the Hull and Barnsley Companies. It was only natural that, having promoted this competitive railway company, they were anxious to assure that for the future they should have the benefit of this competition, and that as soon as the new railway was constructed the powerful North Eastern should not come along and buy up a controlling interest in it. They succeeded in
having this right of veto incorporated in the Hull and Barnsley Act, 1880. I should like to read a few lines of that Act:
The company shall not sell, dispose of, or lease any land or foreshore for the purpose of a dock or docks or works or conveniences connected therewith, or any part thereof, nor shall they in any way transfer the management or control thereof, without the consent in writing of the corporation first being obtained.
In 1893 an Act was passed to enable the North Eastern Railway to take over the dock, but the veto of the corporation was still preserved in that Act, which states:
The North Eastern Railway Company shall not, without the consent in writing of the Corporation under their common seal, at any time purchase or take on lease, or amalgamate with, or accept the transfer of, the management and control of the Hull and Barnsley undertaking or any part thereof, or enter into any general arrangement with the Hull and Barnsley Company or make any application for such purpose.
Since that time several attempts have been made by the North Eastern Company to acquire a controlling interest in the Hull and Barnsley Railway, but the Hull Corporation has always exerted its veto, and up to the present time it has always been respected. In 1899 a Bill was promoted to construct a new dock, now known as St. George's Dock, and this Act contained a Section which ran as follows:
Nothing in this Act contained shall alter or affect the provisions of Section 8 of the North Eastern Railway Dock Act, 1893, or of the agreement contained in Schedule D of the Hull and Barnsley and West Riding Railway Act, 1880.
Thus, under no less than three Acts of Parliament the Hull Corporation is given the right of vetoing any amalgamation on the part of the Hull and Barnsley and North Eastern Companies. My colleagues and I are opposing this Bill because we feel it is injurious to the best interests of Hull that these two railways should be amalgamated. The Bill entirely ignores the unique position of the Hull Corporation in reference to their railway, because, after all is said and done, the Hull and Barnsley Company is practically the Hull Railway. If this Bill becomes law, the port will once more be placed at the mercy of a single company. It is no good pointing out to residents and traders in Hull that conditions have altered and that under the Ministry of Transport their interests will be protected. Hatred of the North Eastern
Railway Company is a tradition in Hull on account of the treatment which the town received prior to 1880, and once a city or corporation has received treatment such as that, they will not willingly revert to conditions which even make possible the continuance of that treatment. The position might be made even worse in Hull now, because at that time the docks were not owned by the North Eastern Company; but now they are owned by that company. If the proposals embodied in the Bill become law, the entire railway and dock facilities of Hull will be in the hands of one body, a state of affairs which the Corporation of Hull have struggled to defeat for more than 50 years, and which, up to the introduction of this Bill, they had succeeded in defeating.

Mr. G. BARNES: In view of the number of Members desirous of speaking, I shall put my points in tabloid form. First, as a Scotch Member, I associate myself with the eloquent statement made last week by the hon. Member for the Camlachie Division of Glasgow (Sir H. Mackinder) in regard to the Scottish railways. That does not mean I am not in favour of the grouping system, but I think the Scotch companies have been dealt with unfairly. Government control of the railways has had the effect of up-setting the pre-War equilibrium of the Scottish companies, and, moreover, in the future they will not be able to resume their pre-War position because they will be subject to terms which will have to be operative over the whole field. I support the hon. Members from Scotland who have spoken so well in regard to the solidarity of Scotland on this matter, and I hope the Government's last word has not yet been said upon it. I am going to vote for the Bill for four separate and distinct reasons. First, it tends in the direction of public ownership; second, the grouping will tend to economy; third, it brings something in the nature of reason and common sense to take the place of strike and lockout in industrial dispute; and fourth, there is a little improvement in what it does in the way of the division of surplus revenue between the companies and the community.
With regard to the first point I approach the matter entirely from the point of view put forward by the leader of the Labour party. I am in favour of public ownership.
To my mind it is absurd that the main arteries of the country should be owned by private capitalists and controlled by directors who, in the very nature of things, must have regard, if not exclusively at all events mainly, to the interests of their shareholders. But here I part company with my right hon. Friend, who thinks that the effect of this Bill will be to make public ownership more remote—or to make nationalisation more remote. I may say by way of interpolation that the word "nationalisation "has no attraction to my mind, because it seems to carry with it the suggestion of a bureaucracy, and I do not want that. I am in favour of public ownership, and until we have some better foundation to build upon for central or national control, I shall myself be in favour of something in the nature of local control. I do not fear that this Bill will make public ownership more remote. It seems to me that the enlargement of the unit of administration must necessarily mean the larger unit which he and I desire. I am glad to learn that the Minister of Transport says the question of joint control, or the representation of Labour on boards of management, is still an open question.

Sir E. GEDDES: I did not say that.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. BARNES: If I remember aright, the right hon. Gentleman said it could be dealt with in Committee. There is a good deal of opinion in this House, at any rate, that it ought to be regarded as an open question. I do not know what is the reason for the previous arrangement breaking down, although I have my own opinion on that. But this question of joint control is one of great importance. It is a question on which extremes meet. The hon. and gallant Member for Totnes (Colonel Mildmay) spoke to-night as a director of the Great Western Railway Company. Although he said he would be in favour of co-operating with workmen in regard to settling conditions of work as far as possible—I think he said he endorsed the principle of the Whitley Councils—yet he was altogether opposed to the workmen having a seat on the board of directors. I noticed he was loudly cheered in that by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). That attitude is very unfortunate. It is really the attitude of keeping the work-
man at arm's length—of assuming superiority, of assuming that the worker is not as fit to take part in directorial duties as other people. That attitude is extremely unfortunate for the continued future smooth working of industry in this country. That is the point of view of the extremist on the capitalist side. But we have the same extreme on the other side. We have the workman's leader in effect saying to the workman, "Have nothing to do with capitalism, it is an unclean thing." I would ask people who talk in that way, do they expect that in the course of one night a new heaven and earth will grow up and that the capitalist will fade away entirely? If so, it seems to me that they imagine a vain thing. The system of capitalism may be right or wrong, good or bad, but systems are not made, they grow and they grow in obedience not only to the will but in accordance with the capacity of the people. Therefore, it seems to me that Labour ought to welcome any opportunity of serving an apprenticeship for this work. For my part, I regret exceedingly that this question of the representation of Labour upon directorships of companies has been dropped somehow out of the Bill. On the second point—that the Bill will effect some economy—I do not know how much, but I fancy the Minister expressed the hope it would be an economy of something like £25,000,000. If it is that will be a great thing both for the business of the country, for the companies, and for the workers. But whether it is so or not it seems to me clear that the Bill will effect some economy because of the grouping together of a number of companies with separate staffs and the saving also of expenditure due to the promotion of new companies. I remember a few years since sitting on a Bill upstairs with three colleagues. Two of them were killed in the War, and the other has also died. We sat for 11 days. We had before us expert engineers and railwaymen from New York; we heard the principal lawyers of the Parliamentary Bar; and I was told that the promotion of the Bill cost something like £70,000. Somebody had to pay that. You cannot get experts from New York and you cannot get tip-top lawyers for nothing; and when I think of the money wasted in times gone by, sometimes wasted by one company seeking to poach
on the preserves of another company, or wasted on the promotion of Bills in districts where there is only work for one company, and thereby involving starvation for two companies if set up, it is when I think of these things that I am induced to support the Bill upon the second of the grounds I stated.
I come next to my third ground, and I am afraid that here I shall not find I have many friends. The House will remember that provision is made in the Bill for the settlement of labour disputes by reason, argument, and common sense, as against recourse to a strike or lockout. I have heard a lot of speeches during the last few days, and I have been interested in noting the anæmic and fainthearted expressions of the Leader of the Labour party, of the right hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. G. Roberts), and of an hon. Member on the opposite side who spoke to-night. The Leader of the Labour party thought the Bill went too far. My right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich thought it was on the right course, and therefore endorsed the degree of arbitration that might be embodied in the Measure, although he is against the principle of arbitration generally. That seemed to me to be the attitude of the hon. Member who spoke opposite. For my part, I could go much further than either of them. I endorse the Bill, but I should also have endorsed it if the Government had made it a condition of having the matter settled in the way suggested, as a condition of giving the other conditions of the Bill, not only to the workers, but to the companies.
The question of compulsory arbitration is not involved in this Bill, but I should like to say a word or two about it. I think it is time that more attention was given to the rights of the community in industrial disputes, and I believe the application of the principle of compulsory arbitration is merely a matter of time and circumstances. Events are forcing it to the front. Time was when organisations of labour and capital were small, and when a dispute could be watched by the community with comparative indifference. But now organisations are large, they cover the whole field, they involve the whole community in loss and suffering, and, therefore, it seems to me that the community will have to assert itself in its own protection. It cannot go on with conditions as at present, when the com-
munity is simply squeezed between the millstones of capital and labour, or labour and capital, as the case may be. My right hon. Friend the Labour Leader expressed himself tentatively in favour of the principle provided there were these four safeguards: first of all, a minimum wage; secondly, a maximum profit; thirdly, joint control; and, fourthly, what he called a fair distribution of the surpluses. But he did not bring Labour into the distribution at all. I should like him, if he speaks again on this matter, to tell us quite frankly whether he is in favour of profit-sharing. I am going to say quite frankly I am, so far as this particular Bill is concerned, and I do not know I would not go further. I admit I have changed my attitude. Twenty or even 10 years ago, I would not have said this, because at that time I was always in fear that the promotion of profit-sharing schemes had at the back of them the weakening of trade unions. But now, I would like to suggest to my hon. Friends, have we not got beyond that stage? I think we have. Trade unions are sufficiently strong to withstand anything of that kind, so that it seems to me we might very well provide the incentive to efficiency to the workmen as well as the owners of the railways.
I may be accused of being inconsistent. I do not care two pence about being inconsistent. If one is consistent in looking at the facts at the present time, that is the best form of consistency, and at this time I am in favour of the workmen having a share in surplus profits. It is not at all a new principle. Many co-operative societies adopt it. Of course, the basic principle of the federated co-operative movement is a standard wage to the labour, a standard profit to the capitalist, and then a distribution of all the rest to the purchasers. It is a very good principle, but I do not see why we should not adjust our minds to the new facts of the situation, and, so far as this Bill is concerned, bring in labour and capital as well. As I say, some co-operative societies adopt it. I have intimate knowledge of one where there is a standard wage paid to the workman, a standard profit to the capitalist, and a standard dividend to the purchaser, and then the surplus is divided in equal proportions between all three. Therefore, they are all directly interested in adding to the surplus, or seeing that there is a surplus. Then, on the fourth point, that
is to say, the division of the surplus revenue, if there is any, I think there is a good deal to be said for the point put the other night by my hon. and gallant Friend behind me as to the division not being quite simple of 20 per cent. going to the company and 80 per cent. to the traders. That is to say, the company gets one if it has made five. It seems to me it would be more eager to save if it got two instead of one, and I think there is reason for the consideration of that matter.
Let me conclude by saying that I shall vote for the Bill, although I hope there will be something done in the direction of a re-consideration of the grouping, and also, of supreme importance, not only so far as this Bill is concerned, but so far as the whole industrial situation of the country is at this time concerned, I hope there will be some reconsideration of the point in regard to workingmen having a seat on the board of directors. You have got to do something to add to the interest of workmen in their daily lives. You have got to see that they are not treated as mere hands, as they were 50 years ago, because to-day you are not dealing with the sort of workmen with which you were dealing 50 years ago. A man, 50 years ago, was illiterate; he accepted without demur a position of subordination. The workman to-day is educated, and, as Mr. Justice Sankey said a few years ago, why should we not avail ourselves of that education? I hope, before the Bill passes its final stage in this House, we shall carry out what I know, not in this connection, but in other connections, was the intention of the Government some time ago, and that was to give workmen seats on boards of directors, in the same way and having the same status as other people.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: What-ever may be the merits of the claim of local railways, or even of national railways, I think the one predominant need in all parts of the country is the reduction of the present charges and the costs of our railway system. The question naturally arises, how far is the trader protected, and how far are we going to gain by the proposals which are made? Some hon. Members, representing railway companies more directly, have suggested that the present impasse is due to the bureaucratic control of recent years, and
they made light of the figures which the Minister gave to the House, when he introduced the Bill, showing that in other countries the haulage charge per ton mile is much less than here. The hon. and gallant Member for Durham (Major Hills) suggested it was unfair to compare costs in America with its large runs and costs in this country with the shorter train loads and shorter distances. But surely the comparisons the Minister gave with regard to Prussia and France are in more ways comparable, because, although their average train run may be somewhat larger, on the other hand they have a lesser proportion of heavy traffic, such as coal and ironstone, and, therefore, I think the comparisons the Minister gave were fair. As compared with our .9 per ton mile, in those other countries the point is as low as .6 per ton mile.
Those figures were the result of pre-War investigation, the result of the railway companies' investigation without what they complain of—the control of the State. Therefore, I submit by their own showing, without that bureaucratic control of which they complain, that they had, comparatively speaking, a free hand and they have failed, as compared with other railways in other parts of the world, to give the British traders those facilities which they had a right to demand. Surely, the only way in which we can look for salvation in this regard is by these forms of co-ordination and unification which the Minister has outlined? My own regret is that the Minister has fallen short in this Bill of that larger vision and scheme which he outlined in his original Transport Bill, and even the larger scheme which was outlined by the Government before the election. It is another case, like so many, of the big hopes that were raised having tumbled to the ground in the course of years.
We were told—I think rightly—that the transport systems of the country were not merely feeders and arteries to our trade, but were also the lungs of our towns, and that the whole housing question was as dependent on our railways as upon the special conditions of town life. Personally, I regret that after the high hopes that were raised and the vision held out to the country, the Government have seen fit to whittle down their proposals so that there no longer is any counterpart to
their housing programme. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London rather chided the Minister for not having fulfilled the promise that he outlined. Surely that is not fair criticism, because the House refused, at the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet, those larger powers which the Minister had suggested should be his—to take the docker from the centre of London and let him live on the outskirts in the fresh air. Therefore I think it is very much to be regretted that the Government have curtailed their scheme to this extent. Such, however, is the desire of us all to make it workable that I want to suggest, in a minute or two, to the Minister, that when the Bill goes into Committee he might protect the rights of the trader to a larger extent than is foreshadowed.
Take the question of the Amalgamation Tribunal. As stated in the Bill, you have three members, two of them excellent professional men of high standing who have been connected with railway work all their lives, and a legal gentleman. Surely it is only right that the traders, as traders, should be represented on that Tribunal? It may be said the question of amalgamation is simply a claim of one railway against another. I submit it is more, because it depends upon how these various claims are allotted as to how the various traders in the different parts of the country will fare. The hon. and gallant Gentleman for one of the Liverpool Divisions suggests that Clause 6 (1) should be waived in Committee, for, he suggests, it would act very unfairly to the traders of the North Eastern District. In 1913 the North Eastern Railway—I am not pleading for the railway company, but for the traders in the district—the year 1913 is the basis on which the amalgamation is to take place, and in that year the North Eastern Railway was paying a higher rate of wages and working shorter hours than any other company. If they are going to amalgamate on a basis of the 1913 figures, without regard to the position which has been changed during recent years by improved services and shorter hours on the other railways which are coming into their combine, the traders of the North Eastern District will have to make up their increased rates by a burden which ought to be borne by the
other partners in the control. I put that as supporting what the hon. and gallant Member for Liverpool suggests. I have no doubt the Government will see that in Committee they will not in any way reduce the protection which Clause 6 (1) gives to the various traders when this question of amalgamation is being considered.
As to the Rates Tribunal, I think there the representation of the traders on the Board requires to be emphasised. It should be increased, because surely in all these matters it is expedient, and for efficiency. The trader does not want to wait 14 days, nor, indeed, 14 hours, before he gets a reply as to what particular rate is available for any special cargo that may come along. I do hope that in Committee the Bill will be improved so that the traders may be more and more aided and protected.
I trust the competition which is in existence to a limited extent with regard to road transport, the competition in regard to sea-borne traffic, and also in regard to the canals will be increased and continued under the Ministry, whatever we may not have of competition as between one railway and another. We know as traders that for many years now there has been no effective competition as between one railway company and another, and I trust that the Minister and the House will see in Committee about protecting these rights of competition which exist in regard to road transport, canal traffic, and sea-borne traffic, so that we may get the whole of the advantage from the unification and economies that will come from this Bill: while at the same time that there shall be a measure of competition in respect to these other matters of transport. I support what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. Barnes), in regard to labour having a greater share in the management and direction of the railways. I deplore, as other speakers have deplored, the fact that an arrangement has been come to between the National Union of Railwaymen and the railway companies in this matter. I feel that here was a grand opportunity for a grand experiment to be made to give labour a real living share in the direction of industry. Along these lines lies safety for the future. Here was a great opportunity. It is deplorable that the Government
should have been in any sense a party to get away from that as an ideal, as they have from their other ideals in connection with the Transport Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel JACKSON: I do not want to raise any great criticism in regard to the Bill, but merely to point out to the Minister in charge what appears to me to be an omission—quite unintentional no doubt—which is causing a considerable amount of anxiety amongst large numbers of those employed at the present time at the Railway Clearing House. I think the Railway Clearing House should be considered as part of the railway system of the country. If it be so considered, it ought to come under the provisions of this Bill which apply to the rest of the railway system. The staff of the Railway Clearing House numbers 3,000 members. One may presume, therefore, that the staff will probably have some very useful work to do in the future. Owing, however, to the fact that 50 companies are at present parties to the Clearing House and support it, and that under the provisions of the Bill, it will be observed, they will be absorbed into six groups and the companies will disappear, becoming six instead of 50, the work of the Railway Clearing House will naturally be reduced, and as a consequence the staff to a very large extent will also be reduced. Under the third Schedule of the Bill it is provided that officers and servants of the railway companies who are displaced through amalgamation shall have special consideration. What I ask the Minister to-night is, If it is, as I believe, an unintentional omission that the Railway Clearing House has not been brought into the Bill, it should come under its provisions. He will be able to tell us, and we will be able to bring the Clearing House into the Bill.
I have listened with great interest to nearly the whole of this Debate last Thursday and to-day. I listened with great interest to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister. In that speech he greatly impressed the House, as he did me, although I must say I did not agree with all he said. My right hon. Friend, of course, by this Bill is out to improve the railway system of the country, and he has produced this Bill for that purpose. It may be perfectly legitimate that he should under the circumstances prove or
attempt to prove that the railway system of this country in 1913 was not altogether in a satisfactory condition. My right hon. Friend speaks on this point with great authority. He has had, I know personally, a very great experience. I have had the privilege of watching his career for the last 20 years with growing admiration and respect. He has played many parts. He has played them with distinction, and I sincerely hope his ambition is not yet exhausted. If by any chance he happens to be out of a job, I think I can propose a new one for him. His attention may have been drawn to the fact that we have not done very well in the Test Match to-day! My right hon. Friend stated, and perfectly legitimately no doubt, that the cost of running the railways, the cost of running a ton mile, was heavier in this country than in any other country in the world. He quoted figures, no doubt compiled from careful statistics, that it cost 9 of a penny to move a ton in this country as compared with 4 of a penny in the United States and 6 in Prussia and France. I am afraid I cannot criticise those figures. I have not the remotest idea how they are compiled, but of course we must take them, coming as they do from my right hon. Friend, as being correct. But I would have liked him to have given the comparative cost to-day in all those countries. There might have been a greater difference, or there might possibly have been a smaller difference. Taking those figures, I am not a betting man, but if I were I would be prepared to wager 9 of a penny to 4 of a penny if my right hon. Friend walks into any general manager's office in this country, with the exception of the North Eastern Railway, he would find those figures are disputed. I would ask my right hon. Friend whether those comparisons are quite fair. I wonder if he would really assert that by all the reorganisation and all the regulation of a Bill you really can bring the conditions which prevail in this country of ours to be anything like comparable to the United States.

Sir E. GEDDES: I never said so.

Lieut.-Colonel JACKSON: I know my right hon. Friend never said so. I am asking him whether he would say so now. My right hon. Friend also said that the financial condition of the railways of this
country to-day was not owing to Government control; that that condition existed before the War. Well, I dare say that is true in one or two instances, but it is not true with regard to all the railways. I am certain my right hon. Friend will not say it is true with regard to the North Eastern Railway. But whether it is due to Government control, or, let us say, due to the War, the fact still remains that during these last two years, in spite of the wishes, in spite of the advice, in spite of the protests of the railway companies, expenditure was forced upon them which they did not want, and which was much more than their earning capacity, and which they said was more than their earning capacity to meet. I was impressed by the right hon. Member for Miles Platting (Mr. Clynes) when he also said the position of the railways in this country in 1913 was chaotic and their financial position insecure. If the position of the railways was chaotic—and I suppose he means in administration and management, it was indeed a wonderful recovery which the railways were able to make to be able to carry out their difficult duties during the War in a way which won the admiration of the world. It is an indisputable fact that in all the belligerent countries the British railways were the only railways that did not break down under the strain. My right hon. Friend referred to the Report of the Transport Committee, and he quoted this Report in support of the Bill. I was a member of that Committee, and I was thoroughly satisfied to agree with the Report. It chiefly advocated amalgamation, or rather I should say co-operation, between the various railway companies. I do not hesitate to say I am a firm believer in the principle of amalgamation of the railways of this country if we are really going to have an increase of efficiency and economy, but I believe it can be done just as well if it is allowed to be done voluntarily instead of by compulsion as under this Bill. Under this Bill all the amalgamations are to be completed by June of 1922. That time appears to me to be too short for these amalgamations to be carefully thought out. It is just about the time, if I am to judge by some of the criticisms of this Bill, when we shall be emerging from the Committee stage.
There is an Amendment before the House, moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Miles Platting, and
it deplores the railways are not going to be State-owned or, as I should say, nationalised. I do think my hon. Friends opposite are a little impatient. What worries me, and what worries a great many of my hon. Friends who sit upon this side of the House, is that this Bill appears to be so very little removed from nationalisation. My right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) drew the attention of the House to the number of Clauses in which the control of the Minister or tribunals or committees came into the Bill. After all, it is only necessary to extend control a very little further before you get to a condition which amounts to State ownership. I was interested to-night to hear two speeches, one from my hon. Friend the Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes) and the other from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Gorbals Division (Mr. G. Barnes). Both took up the same attitude: "You need not be the least bit alarmed. Do not be in too much of a hurry. We are not in a hurry. We are in favour of nationalisation, and this Bill puts us on the straight high road for it." It is only adding to my worries, and I am extremely sorry it appears to me to be the case. When I first read this Bill, I must say I thought it was the outcome of a struggle in the Cabinet on the question of nationalisation, and I could not help thinking in my own mind that somehow the extremists had very nearly captured the machine. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London, on the Railway Companies' Association, I know, has the idea that the extremists stampeded the association in the line they have taken. But I cannot dispute the justification of the Government to introduce a Bill at this particular time. They are introducing a Bill for the purpose, in their view, of including the railway services of this country. No railway company should, and no railway company in my opinion would, for one moment put any obstacle in the way of any Bill which appears to them to tend towards that end and to show a real effort and a real chance of making that improvement.
When all is said and done, we have to consider the community. Those connected with railway companies have to remember that the interests of their shareholders are inseparably bound up with
the interests of the community. The Bill proposes to improve the services of the companies by two methods, first by amalgamation and secondly by extended Government control. I heartily agree with amalgamation, and I think it is the proper method, but extended Government control I regret. I do not think that during the past seven years Government control has proved a very great success or gives us any great encouragement. I would like to see that control drastically modified in Committee, and then perhaps many parts of the Bill which we approve of may be made a success and increase the advantages and facilities of the railway companies. If those modifications are made in Committee, perhaps we may have a Bill which, although at the present time I am not satisfied with, I shall be able to support on Second Reading. I hope it will emerge from the Committee so as to enable me to support it on the Third Reading.

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The hon. Gentleman who has just resumed his seat, like many other speakers who preceded him, has offered criticisms of the Labour party in tabling this Amendment to the Second Reading of this Bill. He appears to think that we were rather impatient because at this stage we were protesting against the Government failure to provide, as we state in our Amendment, for public ownership and control of our railway system. I suggest if this Bill could have been considered, or at any rate if the question of a new system for our railways could have been considered apart from some of the more recent experiences we had during the five years of the world War, I think we might safely say that the principles contained in our Amendment would have received much more general support both in this House and the country. It is because we have had experience of a form of control that is not public ownership in the sense that we on these Benches stand for, but a form which gives us everything that is bad in connection with Government control without giving us the effective control that we aim at; and because that system has been tried during the difficult times of the War and has not answered the expectations which were placed upon Government control, that the whole question of public ownership appears to have got seriously prejudiced.
I am quite certain that in this country, prior to 1914, there was a very strong desire—in fact, it might be said that opinion was rapidly ripening—in favour of some better and more effective system of railway control and management than that which we enjoyed at that time under what was known as private ownership. As has been so frequently stated, we had numerous companies. I think one hon. Member said this afternoon that in 1914 there were something like 120 boards of directors and committees existing in connection with the whole of our railway system. It is well known that we had serious overlapping. We had a great amount of waste, and there were very serious delays, and traders were constantly crying out about them. We had vexatious rates that were being charged; we had the old question of the anomalous system of rates as between home and foreign produce that was being carried over our railway system.
That is not all. In addition to the experience we had before 1914, we have had our War experience. Surely, after the difficulties we experienced during the War and the vast amount of expense to which the country was subjected, including now an additional sum of £60,000,000, one would have thought that this would have influenced the Government to devise some means whereby we would at any rate have been prevented from having a recurrence of the position we find ourselves in when the Government of the day determined to control the railways for the period of the War. We all hope, I am sure, that the possibility of any war in the future may be very remote, but I do not think it would be going too far to say that if we have to avoid another great conflagration our international relations will have to be placed on a much different footing than, unfortunately, they have been during recent months. At any rate, with the world so disturbed as it has been we cannot afford to ignore entirely the position which the State would again find itself in should we ever be involved in another great war similar to that which we have just gone through.
It seems to me, having regard to all these considerations, it is to be regretted that the Government have not been much more courageous than the policy of their Bill represents. It seems that the policy of the General Election was one thing and the policy of this Bill is another. What
my right hon. Friend (Mr. Clynes) said in moving this Amendment I will repeat, that during the election campaign the right hon. Gentleman, now the Colonial Secretary, made the most emphatic declaration as to the future intentions of the Government with regard to the railways. Then, many in the country and in this House regard the public ownership and complete unification of our railways as part of the Government's policy when the Government established the Ministry of Transport in 1919. The Bill before the House does not, in my judgment, give us the best system that could be devised. It does not give us the system we were led at the General Election to expect that the Government would bring before the House. Having regard to the importance of transit in the development of industry, one would have thought that a serious attempt would have been made to give the country the most complete and the most unified system of railways and transit that it was possible for experience to devise. The Bill does not provide that system, and that is our clear and definite justification for moving the Amendment. We have the fear, as we say in our Amendment, that the Bill will create such vested interests as to prejudice the future. My opinion is that when this wave of reaction passes, when all the talk about "squander-mania" leaves people cold, people will come round again to the feeling, not only with regard to railways, but with regard to other essential services that we ought not to be left either during periods of peace or any possible future period of War at the mercy of privately-owned and privately-controlled public services. Therefore we think the Government have gone too far, not merely in failing to provide us with the system itself, but is probably making it impossible for it to be introduced. It may be that it is part of their policy; that they are apprehensive of what the electors may do either this year or next year or at some date in the future. They are afraid that the Government might be changed for a Government of advanced views, and they are determined, not only to provide for their friends when they are in office, but to do something for them when they no longer occupy the seat of Government.
I want to refer to the much debated question of wages boards and the workers' association in the control and manage-
ment of the companies. I hope this question is not going to be left by the Government where it is at this moment. The Government have a great responsibility in this matter. The Minister of Transport, in his first White Paper (Cmd. 787), indicated that it was the intention of the Government to give the workers representation on the boards of directors. This is so important that I feel I must quote it to the House—
The composition of the Board is considered to be of the greatest importance, and while in the past the directors of railway companies have all been appointed by the shareholders the Government are of opinion that the time has arrived when the workers, both officials and manual workers, should have some voice in the management. The Board of Management should, in the opinion of the Government, be composed of representatives (a) of the shareholders, who should form a majority on the Board, and of whom a proportion should hold large trading interests, (b) of employés, of whom one-third might be leading administrative officials of the group, to be co-opted by the rest of the Board, and two-thirds members elected from and by the workers on the railways.
It seems to me that that makes the Government responsibility in this matter exceptionally clear. During this Debate we have been told that an agreement has been entered into whereby the representatives of the unions have abandoned their claim to representation on the boards of directors of the companies. I want to try to state what, as far as my information goes, and I have been in close touch with some of the responsible representatives of the unions, the position is, especially in view of the confusion that appears to be in existence, when the unions discussed wages boards and a share in the management with the companies, I think I am right in saying they did so on the suggestion of the Minister of Transport. As soon as the discussion opened, the representatives of the unions found the strongest possible objection to the suggestion, in fact, I think to both suggestions, but certainly one of the suggestions, on the part of the companies. First, they found objection to the continuance and reconstruction of the National Wages Board, and, secondly, the most decided objection to their having representation on the boards of management. Now there cannot be any doubt that to this latter point the companies are to-day, and have been all along, definitely and irrevocably opposed. I think we can safely say that it was only
after great pressure that the companies withdrew their objections to the reconstitution of the wages board, and they said they could only do so if the unions would not ask—and I want the right hon. Gentleman to follow "me very closely in this—if the unions would not ask for the insertion in the Bill of provisions for giving to the employés a share in the management. The maintenance and improvement of the National Wages Board has been for a long time a burning question amongst railway employés. It has been repeatedly brought to the notice of the Minister of Transport, and I think it might be said that he has accepted very freely the principle without having made any very decided effort to induce the companies to accept it. The unions assert that with regard to the reconstitution of the wages board they have had little or no assistance from the Ministry of Transport. The unions authorise me to say that in such circumstances—

Sir E. GEDDES: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly say which unions?

Mr. HENDERSON: The three unions are acting together in this matter—the National Union of Railwaymen, the Locomotive Men's Union, and the Railway Clerks' Union. We have had them here during the discussions in connection with the Bill, and what I am saying I am entitled to say on behalf of the whole of the three unions. I was about to remark that they thought, having regard to the circumstances I have just mentioned, that it was in the interests of the community, and also of the railway employs, that they should recognise that it was more important at the moment that industrial peace should be made and if possible maintained by the continuance and extension of these boards, than that the employeés should insist upon their right to a share in the management of the railways.

Sir E. GEDDES: I am very sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend, but I am sure he will excuse me, because it is important that we should get the true facts. When the three unions on behalf of which he speaks saw him, was that before or after the letter dated the 22nd May from the National Union of Railwaymen which was read in the House to-day?

10.0 P.M.

Mr. HENDERSON: The first interviewtook place on Thursday during the last Debate, the second took place to-day. I have not seen the letter, but have only heard it read. I do not think, however, that there is anything in it which is at all opposed to the point I am making. If the right hon. Gentleman, now that he has interrupted, will read the letter and point out where it conflicts with what I have said, I shall be prepared to resume my speech.

Sir E. GEDDES: The letter is as follows:
I have just had an opportunity of reading last night's Debate on the Railways Bill, and note that Mr. Graham, M.P., made the following statement: 'The position of the railwaymen is this: They were very anxious to secure a national wages system, and they are still very anxious to preserve that system; but they are also very anxious to maintain the claim which was put forward for representation on the boards of management, and they see no reason whatever why that claim should not be pressed in the course of the Committee stage of the Bill.'
That is what the hon. Member for Edinburgh said. The letter goes on:
This statement would convey the impression that the representatives of the railwaymen's unions desired to repudiate the arrangement which they made with the representatives of the railway companies. Therefore, I want to state quite plainly that, so far as the National Union of Railwaymen is concerned, having entered into a bargain, it is prepared to keep it, whether the results are satisfactory or otherwise. This being so, the National Union of Railwaymen is not withdrawing from the arrangement made with yourself on 3rd May, and my object in sending you this letter is to ensure that our attitude shall not be misunderstood.—Yours faithfully, C. T. CRAMP.

Mr. HENDERSON: I think I am quite safe in saying that no single word in that letter conflicts with the point I have made. I never suggested for a moment that the National Union of Railwaymen desired to violate or depart from the agreement into which they have entered. I was not dealing with the agreement, but with the position of the Government in regard to this question of a share in the management of the railways. I was showing the procedure that had been followed up to a certain point, and I hope I should be the last in this House by any word or suggestion to try to influence the railway workers or any other body of workers to depart from agreements for the settlement of wages disputes, because I have spent
too long a life in endeavouring to induce them to make such agreements. The point that I was making was that the unions were not pleased with the arrangement made. I am trying to show that they made an agreement under pressure, that it was a case of Hobson's choice, and that in the public interest, instead of pressing for representation on the management, they gave way.

Colonel MILDMAY: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will pardon me for interrupting him, but has he taken into consideration the passages in the railwaymen's newspapers giving their opinion on this point?

Mr. HENDERSON: Now that I am challenged, I will give my right hon. Friend a few quotations from the railwaymen. The first that I will give is dated 15th December, 1920. It says:
The railway workers expect that their new conditions of service will be continued if and when the railways have passed out of Government control, and they are expecting representation on the board of management in accordance with a recommendation of the Minister of Transport.
The next is dated 21st January, 1921—
Where your correspondent goes wrong is in assuming that, in the event of my suggestion not being adopted by the railway trades unions, or in the event of the unions being unable to get nationalisation accepted, the association would decline to co-operate with the other unions in being represented in the Councils of Railway Management.
Then, in May, 1921—this paragraph deals with the agreement to which the right hon. Gentleman has just referred—
No doubt there will be surprise that the parties to the agreement are not to have the promised status on the management committees of the railways, but, as our readers will doubtless remember, we ourselves have never been keen on such representation so long as the railways are not nationalised.
I think all that goes to show that I was quite right in urging that they were not pleased with the agreement which they have signed, and, I hope, will loyally keep, and that that does not rid the Government of the responsibility that I was endeavouring to bring home to them.

Colonel MILDMAY: Without any desire to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, will he allow me to ask him whether he has any more recent expressions of opinion, which most strongly express the
determination of those on behalf of whom he is speaking to have no representation on the boards of directors?

Mr. HENDERSON: If I had anything more recent than May, 1921, I should certainly have quoted it. My right hon. Friend asked me to quote from their papers, and I have actually quoted from the "Railway Clerks Journal" of three different dates, including the last issue. Surely I cannot be expected to get the next issue, which probably has not yet passed through the printers' hands. But that is the position, and it seems to me that this is too important a matter for the Government to leave where it is at the present moment. The hon. and learned Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mr. L. Scott) said on Thursday that the railway companies were definitely opposed to any such proposal as a share of the workers in the management. I think this is a question that does not merely concern the directors of companies, and, further, it is a matter that does not merely concern the railway workers. This is a matter of vital importance to the whole future of industry. Since the Armistice those who mix with the workers, especially the organised workers, know that one of the things they have been advocating most strongly is a share in the control of industry, the raising of the status of the worker, and surely we cannot say that we are prepared to use the intelligence of the worker up to a certain point and then refuse to use either the intelligence or the practical experience of the worker when it comes to the actual details of management. I am convinced in this matter that those who are responsible for organising the other side of industry are doing themselves a positive injustice, because there is not anything which would be so calculated to improve the relations between employers and employed as that the employing classes should be prepared to take into their confidence the representatives of the workers, not merely in what are called shop committees or pit committees, but to take them into a share and show them the responsibility for the commercial side of commercial and industrial affairs. Therefore I hope the Government will not leave this matter where it is, but that during the Committee and Report stages it will have most careful consideration, in the hope that even now we may
be prepared to assist the directors and the unions to a solution other than that contained in the agreement which has been referred to.
I am now going to speak from the standpoint of one of the districts in Lancashire. It is a Committee question I am going to refer to. My right hon. Friend knows something about the St. Helens Canal and Railway Transfer Act, 1864. Many of the traders in the Lancashire area, and also in my constituency, feel that they are being most unfairly dealt with in the Bill. They have enjoyed certain rights since 1864. Repeated attempts have been made to take away those rights. On several occasions the London and North Western Railway Company promoted Bills but a Committee of this House and a Committee of the House of Lords laid it down clearly and unmistakably that those rights had to be respected. They are all swept away under this Bill. These traders are left at the mercy of the Rates Tribunal and I am merely asking the right hon. Gentleman to see that we have a full opportunity to discuss this aspect of the case in Committee because the chemical and the glass industries, which may be described as key industries, for which the Government is legislating, feel that they are being very hardly hit. It seems to me it is a great mistake for us to talk about protecting key industries if we are going to make it more difficult for them to carry on their business as they have done by taking away rights which they have enjoyed since 1864.

Sir E. GEDDES: I feel that for a Bill of this magnitude and importance I have to thank the House for the reception it has obtained. The opposition to the measure is fairly and clearly defined. There is the opposition of those who desire to see nationalisation, there is the opposition of the Scotch Members who are anxious about the Scotch railways, and there is the opposition of my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hull.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: And you have not heard the last of it either.

Sir E. GEDDES: The first point which is raised was that of nationalisation. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) referred us back
to 1918, when we were at war, and to some answers given by the Prime Minister to a deputation from the Trades Union Congress and to something which was said just previous to the General Election by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Churchill). I think both those utterances were made in a sympathetic tone to a re-organisation of the railways, but, so far my personal knowledge goes, nationalisation was looked upon by both my right hon. Friends as possibly something which the country had to accept, and this Bill is the only alternative the Government has been able to find. That is really the position. Nationalisation looked like an evil that we might not be able to avoid. I believe we can avoid it. As to the Bill itself, I think there has only been one hon. Member who has spoken against one of its principal features—grouping—the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Gretton). Everyone else, even including my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London, has spoken in favour of grouping or else has not spoken against it, and, generally speaking, compulsion in the last resort appears to be accepted as essential. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

Mr. G. BALFOUR: A large number of Members who have not yet spoken are totally opposed to the Bill, and will speak against the principle.

Sir E. GEDDES: I regret that I have not had an opportunity of hearing the hon. Member's views. I am referring to those who have spoken. As to the basis of the terms of amalgamation, points were raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the West Derby Division (Sir R. Hall) and by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. MacVeagh) on behalf of the Great Eastern Railway and the smaller companies. The Clauses which deal with the terms of amalgamation are, of course, a matter for the House. We have to see that they are fair, but dealing, as I have to deal, with the Railway Companies' Association—we cannot deal with every railway, as there are too many; we deal with their association—those represented by both speakers are members of the association. This Clause was theirs. If it is not fair the House will see that it is fair before we pass it through Committee, and between now and the Committee stage I am quite prepared, and I feel sure the Committee will be anxious to see, that no injustice is done, and I shall certainly make it my
business to ascertain the facts. As regards a general measure of State regulation, it is generally admitted that if you are going to avoid the evils of trusts and large combinations, you must have a measure of State control to protect the public. What that measure should be, I do not know. I put it in the Bill as I thought fairly, not to be too oppressive to the railways, and to be adequate protection to the users, the community. If I have erred in one respect or another we are open to change. If the traders and the public on the one side, and the railways on the other, will represent their views, I have no doubt that we can arrive at a fair adjustment.
Another point which has been raised at considerable length has been referred to by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Henderson), and that is the question of the men on the boards of the railways. The history of that the House ought to know as fully as possible, because it is a very important point. My own attitude, and the attitude of the Government, is quite well known. We think that a mistake has been made by both sides, both by the unions and by the companies. The unions and the companies desired to meet to discuss their relations. Speaking from memory, I do not think that I knew they were going to discuss the question of men on the boards. They asked me to arrange a meeting. It simply meant the passing of letters, and they met. The unions knew quite well that the Government had determined to invite this House to include in the Measure the inclusion of men on the boards. There was no possible ground for misunderstanding between myself and the unions on that point. They went into the negotiations, and they came to an agreement. My right hon. Friend says that it was by force majeure. I know railway unions very well by now; I have lived with them for 20 years. I do not think there was much force majeure. If there had been, if they had felt that they were being unduly pushed, and they knew that the Cabinet was united on this matter, it would be contrary to past history for them not to have been in my room within 24 hours. They never came. I regret their decision, but it is a decision, and it will be a very serious thing if bargains made like that are to be upset without protest by either side.
This House is, of course, free to take its own decision, and this House will no doubt weigh the grave step which it may be invited to take by my right hon. Friend and those for whom he speaks. If the parties went into a bargain like this, which we hope will make for peace in the railway industry between labour and employer, and if this House deliberately breaks that bargain, they will take a very grave responsibility. We have trouble enough to-day. Here the employers and the employed have agreed. Here is a document which was sent to me, which I never saw until it had been sent to me, and never dreamed it was coming to me. This document says:
The agreement contained in Clauses 1 to 4, which are operative Clauses, has been arrived at on the distinct understanding that the Railway Bill as presented to the House of Commons shall contain in the form of a Clause or Clauses the following provisions, and that no further reference shall be made in the Bill either in regard to management or wages conditions.
You could not have anything plainer. The men never said, "We have been forced into a hole; we are really driven with our backs to the wall to drop something that we desire in order to have something else." This document was the first that I heard about the matter. My hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Colonel Jackson) asked about the staffs of the Railway Clearing House in the Bill. That point will be met.
I come now to the very large question of the Scottish railways. Their case was put very strongly and clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Sir H. Mackinder) and other speakers. I admit that it is a difficult question. It bristles with difficulties. It has been the most controversial aspect of the whole Bill. Frankly, it is the most powerful opposition to the Bill I have seen yet. At the same time—and I know that my Scottish compatriots are with me here—we have got to be logical. We Scottish are always logical. We try to be fair always—on our own side. We must try to be constructive. There is no use saying this is all bad. Let us find the solution. The national sentiment in the Scottish case is rather perplexing. They first say, "We desire to be bracketed with our good and faithful friends south of the border, and to have our railways managed from King's Cross and Euston." That goes with it. On the
other hand, they say, "If you leave us as a Scottish system or two Scottish systems, it is preposterous that a tribunal composed of Englishmen"—it would not be—"should have any say in Scotland or even on a Scottish tribunal." I will ask the Scottish Members to let me put the case as I see it.

Lieut-Colonel MURRAY: That is not the position as we see it.

Sir E. GEDDES: My hon. Friend has put the position as he sees it. Scotland is not as rich naturally as England. The Scottish railways in the past have been more frugal than the English railways—before the War. Their standards were lower. Maintenance was much lower and the freight rates were lower on all bulk commodities—much lower than in England. They were in difficulties before the War, and before the War they had a solution of those difficulties. Evidence was given in 1908 before the Board of Trade on the subject of amalgamation by Mr. Jackson, General Manager of the North British Railway, who said:
The amalgamation which resulted in the five existing Scottish undertakings simplified the railway organisation, enabled economies to be effected in working management as well as in giving better service and facilities for traders and the public, which would have been quite impossible with a large number of comparatively small railways. The arrangements at present existing between the five companies with regard to mutual traffic and mutual availability have done something more in the same direction. There is no reason to believe that further scheme of amalgamation which would unite in one all the railways of Scotland would not have the same beneficial results as attended the amalgamations which have already taken place.
He gives then five heads under which savings can be made, and adds:
If the Scottish railways are to be maintained as efficient factors in ministering to the development of the trade of the country relief must come to them from some quarter, as with their capital commitments and the ever-increasing demands of labour, the requirements of the Board of Trade, and the formidable tramway and water competition which they have to meet, with consequent decreasing and even vanishing dividends, it is impossible to continue to find the money to meet their absolute needs, much less to provide for development. Amalgamation, with its possible economies, will afford a substantial contribution toward the relief required.
That was before there was any Government control, before the existence of the
Ministry of Transport, and before the War.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: Voluntary amalgamation.

Sir E. GEDDES: They asked to amalgamate, and they could do that after this Bill. That is what they wanted in 1908 to conserve their vanishing dividends—the North British Railway. Now it is said to be the worst thing possible. Mr. Jackson was their general manager. I met the chairman of the Scottish railways, and it is rather remarkable that they are not agreed. In 1921 Mr. Allan, chairman of the Caledonian Company, dissented from the general view of the rest of the chairmen. He said:
I wish to say on behalf of the Caledonian Railway that while we still adhere to the grouping proposals submitted by the Railway Companies' Association, we desire to answer your question for ourselves"—
That was whether there should be two groups instead of one—
on the assumption that any grouping with the English railways is excluded. We recognise the possibility of important advantages to be derived from the formation of two groups in Scotland, following the lines of the Railway Companies' Association.
That is the Caledonian plan; it wants to be divided in that way, and the other side does not. They are, therefore, not agreed.

Sir H. MACKINDER: That does not exclude amalgamation with corresponding systems in England.

E. GEDDES: ill come to that in a moment. They are evidently not agreed. The North British in 1908 wanted one group for the whole of Scotland. That was the ideal. Now the Caledonian Company want a group of themselves and certain other railways, and the formation of two groups. To-day it is claimed that the Scottish railways wish to be grouped longitudinally. It is agreed that the freight rates in Scotland are lower than the corresponding English rates. There is no doubt about that. The Chairman of the North British Railway said to me the other day:
If you put up the rates, you upset the lines over which competition has been carried on in the past.
The chairman of the Caledonian Company, however, says that they would admit that the rates in Scotland would
have to be on the same basis as those in England. He says, "Group me with England and put up the rates." His colleague on the North British says, "If you put up the rates you kill the traffic." I do not think there is any need to put up the rates. That is where we join issue. Hon. Members who speak here do not represent but they speak for the Scottish railway companies.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: We speak for Scotland.

Sir E. GEDDES: Has one hon. Member dared to say that he advocated the putting up of the freight rates? Not one. I do not think it is necessary to put up the rates. You could improve the shareholders' position. That is not what we are here to do, but to see justice done to the community. The maintenance of Scottish railways has for a very long time been on a far more frugal basis than the English standard of maintenance. Their permanent way they maintain 37 per cent. lower than England; locomotive 17 per cent. lower; wagons 33 per cent. lower.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: What standard is the right hon. Gentleman taking?

Sir E. GEDDES: I am giving it as nearly as I can per mile or vehicle or locomotive. It does not matter whether it is pounds or pence. I will not say whether it is adequate or inadequate; it is not as high as England, and these vanishing dividends that have been talked about were being paid with that lower standard of maintenance. They ask for help. They say that the outcome of the seven years War period—be it the result of Government control or otherwise—is that they are bankrupt. I do not admit that, but let us consider how this help for which they ask is to be given. There are three interests who can help. First, there is the State. Does anyone suggest that this House should vote an annual subsidy? I would not dare to suggest it. They are members of an association, and if members of a trade union make a bargain and small branches of the union break away we know what is said. Here an association has made a bargain. The bargain was made with me by a committee of the association and was agreed to by a majority of the association. They have made a bargain to settle this for £60,000,000 gross, or a maximum of £51,000,000 net.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: They did not accept the association's proposals.

Sir E. GEDDES: I am dealing with the association as a whole. That is the sum we have arrived at, to wipe off the whole of the State's liability for this period. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is too much."] It may be too much, but we think it is fair, and we have made the bargain subject to the ratification by the House. The next interest that may be called upon to help the Scottish railways—if they are as bad as they say, and I do not believe they are—is the freight payer. The Scottish freight payer may be called on to pay the same rates, proportionately, as the English freight payer. That may be the right way to do it.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Hear, hear!

Sir E. GEDDES: My hon. Friend speaks with knowledge of the North British Railway when he says, "Hear, hear!" They view it with equanimity. On the other hand, authorities equal to himself say it will kill traffic to increase the rates.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Scottish traders are quite prepared for an increase.

Sir E. GEDDES: They have not said so to me. The alternative offered is to make the English trader pay; to leave the Scotch rates at their present level and let the English trader pay higher rates in order to support the Scotch railways. Is that possible? The third interest to which I refer is that of the shareholders. I do not wish to commit myself as to what the exact terms will be on which Parliament will eventually provide for amalgamation. There are cases of small railways, and there is the case of the Great Eastern Railway so ably put by two hon. Members who have spoken to-day. The Scotch railways say they cannot exist and they ask to be grouped with the English lines. Having said that they are bankrupt, they asked to be grouped with the English companies.

Mr. G. BARKER: Give them a pool.

Sir E. GEDDES: Do they suppose for a moment that this third alternative is possible and that they can come with this proposal to the English companies, having declared themselves to be bankrupt, with all their propaganda on record, with the speeches of their chair-
men on record, with the circulars they have issued available in print—do they imagine they can come forward and say to the English companies: "Take us at our full 1913 value"? It is not sense. Is the English shareholder to be asked to dispense charity to the Scottish railways? It is not reasonable. Have they ever asked the English railways what terms they can get? Have they discussed that? Have they settled it with them? No, they have discussed and settled nothing; they simply stay there in the north and complain. When I met a deputation of Scottish chairmen—

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Where?

Sir E. GEDDES: In London—in my room—they said unless it is on a pre-War basis we do not want to be fused with the English companies. That was told me by the Chairman of the Committee of Chairmen who came to see me. They asked that English shareholders should take them over on that basis. Here there is a fault. I think I ought to speak plainly. There are a large number of Members representing Scottish constituencies who feel that they must represent the interests of the country from which they come. I agree. I thank them for the attention they have given. I thank them for the industry which they have displayed in trying to get at the bottom of the matter. I deplore that they have not been able to get down to the real facts. They are talking in the sky at present, and I cannot get up there. I am too heavy. They have really done nothing to find a basis. They make capital out of the eight-hour settlement which was agreed to long before I went to the Ministry.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: But it is there, all the same.

Sir E. GEDDES: Quite so, but were there no difficulties and no anomalies before? There were anomalies everywhere. They did not try to meet the men to talk this matter over with them. In March last I spoke to the Industrial Secretary of the National Union of Railwaymen. He said quite clearly that in some cases an eight-hour day was really ridiculous. He had consulted his executive, and they agreed to go into the matter. They were quite prepared to discuss the cases where an eight-hour day would not allow a man to do a fair day's
work. Have the Scotch companies met in order to try and put this thing right? My hon. Friend does not answer. They have not.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: If the right hon. Gentleman will answer some of the questions I am anxious to put to him I will give him a reply.

Sir E. GEDDES: They have made no attempt to settle this matter. The fact is the Scottish companies have overstated their case. In the first place, they said they were £3,500,000 worse off than in 1913. But they could give no evidence of it. Later on they produced another estimate showing that they were £7,000,000 worse off than in 1913. That, too, was challenged, and they withdrew it. There are no figures before us on the point. We have only an expression of the fear that they are bankrupt. They are not bankrupt. They desire to have their position improved. They maintained their property on a very sparse basis before the War. During the War they maintained it on a very much higher level, and I shall have something to say about that later on. I do not think they need have very much anxiety if they will only pull themselves together. I agree they have anxieties, but the real facts are these: We made a settlement with the Railway Companies' Association, of which they are members, for £51,000,000. During the War they have spent money on the maintenance of their undertakings which, if it were applied pro rata to the whole of the railways in the Kingdom, would have involved the State in an additional £58,000,000 over and above the normal maintenance, irrespective of prices. We have settled for £51,000,000 with the majority of the Railway Companies' Association, and the Scottish companies have spent at the rate of £58,000,000. There is nothing in the settlement for them, if you look at it in that way, but I have a claim on behalf of the community. They have a time of anxiety, but until they come down to practical politics, as their English colleagues have done, there is no settlement in sight. I have tried for months, and can get no settlement. I invite the Scottish Members, with great respect, to assist me in this matter, as they have assisted me to-day, to endeavour to find a solution. They have not found a practical one. I
invite them to bring the Scottish companies to reason, to talk practical polities, to come down from the skies, and talk what this House can consider. If we can once get on that basis, we can get a settlement.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman produce his figure?

Sir E. GEDDES: If the Scottish companies will come with representative Scottish Members and talk this matter over on a business basis, I think we ought to get to a settlement. So long as they remain in the skies, I see no hope. I have no money, but I will endeavour in every possible way to meet a difficult situation. It is difficult because of the past, and because of what they have done during the War. I do not say whether it is right or wrong, but I do not agree with what they have done. These things have got to be settled. We have got to try to clear up the great effort of the War without fighting each other, and I will try to do that. That is all I can say about the Scottish case to-night. I thank the House for the way it has received a measure of such far-reaching importance.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What about Hull?

Sir E. GEDDES: That can be dealt with in Committee.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It affects the whole of Yorkshire.

Sir E. GEDDES: I was there long before my hon. and gallant Friend.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I will be there longer than you will, perhaps.

Sir E. GEDDES: I think, on the whole, the House will approve of the Bill. I hope that we will be able to improve it very much in Committee. It is not a party measure. For better or worse, whether it is successful or not, it is an honest endeavour on behalf of myself, the railway companies and those traders who are organised and can be coherent, with a contribution from the men, to arrive at a fair settlement of a problem which is perplexing not only this country, but the whole world. I believe that by this measure, as improved in Committee—which I am sure it will be—
we can get our railways on a really healthy basis. There are those who do not agree. I do know that the traders who are coherent, organised, and can express their own views, and the vast majority of the railways, agree, and on that basis I invite the House to give me the Second Reading.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: At this late hour I shall not endeavour fully to go into the details of the Bill, and although at all times reluctant to speak in opposition to the Government, I should like to say a few words. As I understand a Second Reading Debate, I have always assumed it was the duty of the Minister to deal exclusively with the principle involved in the Bill. I have listened to the introductory and winding up speeches of the right hon. Gentleman and I have not yet heard one word uttered by him on the principles involved. I also listened to the able support given by the Attorney-General and, again, not one word was uttered touching the real principle of the Bill. The whole Debate has been a Debate on Committee points. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mr. L. Scott) touched upon this same point. He referred to what the Minister said in reply to an interruption by the right hon. Baronet for the City of London. "If there was," said the Minister, "any bureaucratic control in the Bill we could deal with it in Committee." We have arrived at a peculiar stage in conducting our affairs here, when on Second Reading we confine ourselves entirely to Committee points and refer to Committee a decision on the main principle of a measure of this kind.
I want only briefly to deal with one or two points. The Bill, as I understand it, puts before us these considerations: 1. The compulsory grouping of lines without any public advantage yet having been shown. 2. The transference of the powers of Parliament to a tribunal. 3. The transference of the higher powers of management from the companies to the tribunals. 4. The elimination of any healthy competition. 5. The constitution of a National Wages Board. It is, in short, the establishment of bureaucratic control in a direct breech of the pledge that was given at the 1918 election, that industry should rightly claim to be free. The Minister—rightly—might ask what any hon. Member who
offers such criticism would do, and even at this late hour I would offer a suggestion on the right methods of dealing with this matter. I would bring in a Bill on constitutional lines authorising (a) the railway companies to amalgamate voluntarily, the amalgamation to take effect on the approval under seal by the Minister; (b) the existing railway companies to have specific powers to introduce a Bill for a specific purpose to amalgamate with smaller lines; and (c) to authorise maximum rates for goods and passengers to suit the altered conditions. I suggest that a Bill like that would not in any way offend British instincts. This Bill, in my opinion, cuts right across British liberties and it strikes right at the root of those cherished things which have made us a great people and a great nation. As I listened to the Minister of Transport speaking on behalf of the proposals of the Bill, I could not get away from the impression of a grown man, knowing a great deal about railways, going back to the nursery and playing at trains. This is an unbusinesslike, an unpractical, an unworkable Bill, if we are going to maintain our liberties and maintain our great position in the world of commerce. What is the assumption in the Bill I The assumption in the Bill is that men who have risen to a great position in the control of industry are weak and are of no ability, or even possibly dishonest; but this bureaucratic Ministry will provide the brain, will provide the initiative, will provide the honesty, and, forsooth, by magic will guide and control and inspire great enterprises which cannot be done by the tested, proved ability of men who have built up those great industries. They say, these bureaucrats, "How well we handled business during the War!"They handled during the War, and why? Because commercial results did not matter. Men who could not achieve any distinction before the War believed themselves to be business marvels in the non-competitive War period. In effect, this Bill says, "No longer can we trust British subjects to deal with and manage the great enterprises which before the War were the envy of the world. No longer can we leave any freedom or any liberty of action. No longer shall unwritten law form a large part of our constitutional machine. We, the War-developed
bureaucrats, know better how to conduct affairs. Liberty must die. Freedom must go. All must bend to the will of tribunals, committees, Minister. Nothing can be done without first asking the Minister, who refers to tribunals, who hold inquiries." This is out fate, and it is death to the very quality which made us great. The measure is founded upon the principle of self-helplessness, contributes a complete change to our race spirit, and must, in the long run, bring about the downfall of the nation. We became a great people, because in our island home, breathing the spirit of liberty, we rapidly claimed the hearts of immigrants, who soon felt and responded to the change from chilly serfdom to the exhilarating freedom nowhere else to be found. British liberty has been the solvent in the past which acted rapidly on the different races of which are composed and made possible that unity of sentiment and spirit by which alone we exist as a great nation and hold together as a great Empire. I have not a share in a railway company, and I am not aware of any friend of mine who has, but I think it right to utter in this House a protest because none has been made against the underlying principle of this Bill which, if we persist in placing upon the Statute Book, will inevitably bring us down. Are we to give a Second Reading to a Bill which contains something which has never been dealt with by the Minister of Transport or by the Attorney-General that is a restriction of our liberty which means that this small island community cannot maintain its position and hold together as a great empire. If we pursue this policy, which was first put forward in the Housing Act, we shall experience the same failure, if not a greater one, as well as the failure of our industry and commerce. If the Amendment is pressed, I shall certainly join in opposing the Second Reading.

Mr. WATERSON: I want to mention two particular points in which the men concerned have a great interest, and which no speaker to-day or on Thursday last has mentioned, and that is the question of the men engaged in the railway industry who are receiving or are likely to receive pensions and superannuation. These men are anxious to know what their future is likely
to be. One company from its friendly society grants a pension of 2s. a week out of the accumulated fund, but when the National Health Insurance Act came into operation the railway companies gave a guarantee to these men to give them at 65 5s. per week additional pension to the 2s. out of the accumulated fund. These men want to know whether this will be guaranteed to them under the system of grouping. These men feel that a Committee should be established to investigate the whole of these funds. We are told that £20,000,000 are at stake, and we want an investigation to see that justice is done to the men and in order that their position will not be jeopardised. With regard to the claim of a Scottish Member, that he spoke on behalf of the railway employés, I have been in touch with the authorities and I am informed

that the hon. Member had no right to speak for the railway employés of Scotland, because not a single branch of the union there has protested against the system of grouping which the Minister of Transport wishes to apply to Scotland.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: rose—

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 259; Noes, 65.

Division No. 123.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Churchman, Sir Arthur
Higham, Charles Frederick


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Clough, Robert
Hills, Major John Waller


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Coats, Sir Stuart
Hinds, John


Armitage, Robert
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.


Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Astor, Viscountess
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hood, Joseph


Atkey, A. R.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hopkins, John W. W.


Austin, Sir Herbert
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)
Howard, Major S. G.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Davies, Sir Joseph (Chester, Crewe)
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)


Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)
Dean, Commander P. T.
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.


Barlow, Sir Montague
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Jephcott, A. R.


Barnes Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Jodrell, Neville Paul


Barnston, Major Harry
Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)
Johnson, Sir Stanley


Barrand, A. R.
Elveden, Viscount
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Barrie, Charles Coupar (Banff)
Evans, Ernest
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Falcon, Captain Michael
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)


Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)
Farquharson, Major A. C.
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William


Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell
Fell, Sir Arthur
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)


Betterton, Henry B.
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Kenyon, Barnet


Bigland, Alfred
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Kidd, James


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Foreman, Sir Henry
Kiley, James Daniel


Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Forrest, Walter
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Blair, Sir Reginald
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Borwick, Major G. O.
Galbraith, Samuel
Lane-Fox, G. R.


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Camb'dge)
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)


Bottomley, Horatio W.
Gee, Captain Robert
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)


Bowles, Coonel H. F.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Lindsay, William Arthur


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Gilbert, James Daniel
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Lorden, John William


Brassey, H. L. C.
Gould, James C.
Loseby, Captain C. E.


Breese, Major Charles E.
Green, Albert (Derby)
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Lowther, Sir Cecil (Penrith)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)


Brown, T. W. (Down, North)
Greig, Colonel James William
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander


Bruton, Sir James
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)
McMicking, Major Gilbert


Butcher, Sir John George
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James


Casey, T. W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
MacVeagh, Jeremiah


Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Maddocks, Henry


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Mallalieu, Frederick William


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Marks, Sir George Croydon


Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Matthews, David


Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.
Rae, H. Norman
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Mitchell, William Lane
Raeburn, Sir William H.
Townley, Maximilian G.


Molson, Major John Elsdale
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.
Tryon, Major George Clement


Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)
Waddington, R.


Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Reid, D. D.
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Renwick, George
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Morden, Col. W. Grant
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Waring, Major Walter


Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Morris, Richard
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Morrison, Hugh
Rothschild, Lionel de
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Neal, Arthur
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Newton, Major Harry Kottingham
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Nield, Sir Herbert
Seddon, J. A.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbrdge)


Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)
Winfrey, Sir Richard


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)
Wise, Frederick


Parker, James
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Pearce, Sir William
Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Smithers, Sir Alfred W.
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill-(High Peak)


Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Woolcock, William James U.


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)
Worsfold, T. Cato


Perkins, Walter Frank
Starkey, Captain John Ralph
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Perring, William George
Steel, Major S. Strang
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray
Stevens, Marshall



Polson, Sir Thomas A.
Stewart, Gershom
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Pratt, John William
Sutherland, Sir William
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.


Prescott, Major W. H.
Taylor, J.
Dudley Ward


Purchase, H. G.
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)



NOES.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hartshorn, Vernon
Sexton, James


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Hayday, Arthur
Shaw, Capt. William T. (Forfar)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, G. H.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Sitch, Charles H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Holmes, J. Stanley
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Briant, Frank
Irving, Dan
Spoor, B. G.


Cairns, John
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Swan, J. E.


Cape, Thomas
Kennedy, Thomas
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cope, Major William
Lawson, John James
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lunn, William
Tootill, Robert


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Macquisten, F. A.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Waterson, A. E.


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Murchison, C. K.
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Forestier-Walker, L.
Myers, Thomas
Wignall, James


Gillis, William
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Glanville, Harold James
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Rankin, Captain James Stuart
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Remnant, Sir James



Grundy, T. W.
Rendall, Athelstan
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. Arthur Henderson and Mr.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Rose, Frank H.
Neil Maclean


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Royce, William Stapleton



Bill read a second time.

Motion made, and Question put, "That

the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House."—[Mr. Clynes.]

The House divided: Ayes, 74; Noes, 246.

Division No. 124.]
AYES.
[11.12 p.m.


Atkey, A. R.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hirst, G. H.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Entwistle, Major C. F.
Holmes, J. Stanley


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Galbraith, Samuel
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Gillis, William
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Glanville, Harold James
Kennedy, Thomas


Briant, Frank
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.


Cairns, John
Grundy, T. W.
Kenyon, Barnet


Cape, Thomas
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Kidd, James


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hall, F. (York, W. R. Normanton)
Kiley, James Daniel


Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Hartshorn, Vernon
Lawson, John James


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Hayday, Arthur
Lunn, William


Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Rose, Frank H.
Tootill, Robert


Macquisten, F. A.
Royce, William Stapleton
Waterson, A. E.


Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Sexton, James
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Morgan, Major D. Watts
Shaw, Capt. William T. (Forfar)
Wignall, James


Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Murray, William (Dumfries)
Sitch, Charles H.
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Myers, Thomas
Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


O'Grady, James
Spoor, B. G.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Rankin, Captain James Stuart
Swan, J. E.



Remnant, Sir James
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Rendall, Athelstan
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Mr. Arthur Henderson and Mr.


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Neil Maclean


NOES.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Ford, Patrick Johnston
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Foreman, Sir Henry
McMicking, Major Gilbert


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Forestier-Walker, L.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Armitage, Robert
Forrest, Walter
MacVeagh, Jeremiah


Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Maddocks, Henry


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Mallalieu, Frederick William


Astor, Viscountess
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)


Austin, Sir Herbert
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Camb'dge)
Marks, Sir George Croydon


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Gee, Captain Robert
Matthews, David


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Mitchell, William Lane


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gilbert, James Daniel
Molson, Major John Elsdale


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz


Barlow, Sir Montague
Glyn, Major Ralph
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.


Barnston, Major Harry
Gould, James C.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Barrand, A. R.
Green, Albert (Derby)
Morden, Col. W. Grant


Barrie, Charles Coupar (Banff)
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Greig, Colonel James William
Morrison, Hugh


Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)
Gretton, Colonel John
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.


Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert


Betterton, Henry B.
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Murchison, C. K.


Bigland, Alfred
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Murray, John (Leeds, West)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hailwood, Augustine
Nall, Major Joseph


Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)
Neal, Arthur


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Borwick, Major G. O.
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Bottomley, Horatio W.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Breese, Major Charles E.
Higham, Charles Frederick
Parker, James


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hills, Major John Waller
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Hinds, John
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)


Brown, T. W. (Down, North)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bruton Sir James
Hood, Joseph
Perkins, Walter Frank


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Perring, William George


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hopkins, John W. W.
Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray


Butcher, Sir John George
Howard, Major S. G.
Polson, Sir Thomas A.


Casey, T. W.
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Pratt, John William


Cautley, Henry Strother
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Prescott, Major W. H.


Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Purchase, H. G.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Rae, H. Norman


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Jephcott, A. R.
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Johnson, Sir Stanley
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)


Clough, Robert
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Reid, D. D.


Coats, Sir Stuart
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Renwick, George


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Cope, Major William
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Rothschild, Lionel de


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Davies, Sir Joseph (Chester, Crewe)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Dean, Commander P. T.
Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)


Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Seddon, J. A.


Elveden, Viscount
Lindsay, William Arthur
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Evans, Ernest
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Lorden, John William
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Falcon, Captain Michael
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Smithers, Sir Alfred W.


Fell, Sir Arthur
Lowther, Sir Cecil (Penrith)
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Flannery, Sir. James Fortescue
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Starkey, Captain John Ralph




Steel, Major S. Strang
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Stevens, Marshall
Waring, Major Walter
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


Stewart, Gershom
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.
Winfrey, Sir Richard


Sutherland, Sir William
Watson, Captain John Bertrand
Wise, Frederick


Taylor, J.
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Thorpe, Captain John Henry
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)
Worsfold, T. Cato


Townley, Maximilian G.
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Tryon, Major George Clement
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Waddington, R.
Williams, C. (Tavistock)
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Wallace, J.
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)



Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.




McCurdy


Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

Mr. SPEAKER: The new Clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson)—[Power to hire dwelling-houses compulsorily for the purpose of providing housing accommodation]—cannot be taken on Report stage, because it involves a charge upon the rates, and a private Member cannot at this stage make a proposal of that kind.

Mr. T. THOMSON: May I point out that, in the first place, this would not eventually involve any charge upon the rates, because what the local authority pay for the house is recovered from the tenants; and, in the second place, as this was part of the original Bill and was given a Second Reading by this House and there were no financial resolutions connected with it, would not that fact affect your ruling on the point?

Mr. SPEAKER: Taking the points raised by the hon. Member in reverse order, the fact that this Clause was in the Bill on the Second Reading does not affect the matter. A charge on rates contained in the Bill on the Second Reading can also be dealt with, or it can even be inserted in Committee. What the hon. Member said applies only to the Report stage, where we have a very strict practice with regard to anything that might involve a charge on the rates. It is quite possible that the charge might be recovered, but the Clause must necessarily involve a charge, at first, upon the rates, and I am bound to follow the practice in that respect, which is very strict. The same condition applies to another Amendment later on in reference to Clause 10.

CLAUSE 3.—(Execution of works, &c., by Local Authorities outside their own Districts in connection with Housing Schemes. 9 & 10 Geo. 5, c. 35.)

(1) Where a housing scheme approved under Section one of the Housing, Town Planning. &c. Act, 1919 (which requires local authorities within the meaning of Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, to prepare and submit to the Minister schemes for the exercise of their powers under the said Part), is being carried into effect by a local authority outside their own area, that authority shall, subject to the approval of the Minister, have power—

(b) to borrow money for the purpose of defraying any expenses (including, if the Treasury so approve, interest payable in respect of any period before the completion of the scheme or a period of five years from the date of the borrowing, whichever period is the shorter, on money borrowed under this section) incurred by the local authority in connection with any such works as aforesaid:

(2) The council of any county or district in which a scheme is being carried out as aforesaid shall have power, with the approval of the Minister, to borrow money for the purposes of any agreement entered into by the council under this Section: Provided that any order of the Minister in so far as it relates to the sanction of a loan under this Section for the purpose of the payment of interest payable in respect of money borrowed shall be provisional only and shall be of no effect until confirmed by Parliament.

Amendments made: At the end of Subsection (1, b) insert the words
Provided that any order of the Minister, in so far as it relates to the sanction of a loan under the foregoing provision for the purpose of the payment of interest payable in respect of money borrowed, shall be provisional only and shall be of no effect until confirmed by Parliament.

In Sub-section (2) leave out the words
Provided that any order of the Minister in so far as it relates to the sanction of a loan under this Section for the purpose of the payment of interest payable in respect of money borrowed shall be provisional only and shall be of no effect until confirmed by Parliament."—[Sir A. Mond.]

CLAUSE 10.—(Application to Ireland.)

This Act in its application to Ireland shall have effect with the following modifications:—

(5) The Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Acts, 1890 to 1919 and this Act, so far as it amends those Acts, may be cited together as the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Acts, 1890 to 1921.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. D. M. Wilson): I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add a new Sub-section—
(6) For the purposes of Section six of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, this Act shall be deemed to be an Act passed before the appointed day.
This Amendment is necessary in order to give the local Parliaments in Ireland full power to amend this Act or deal with it as they think fit. When the question of the application of the Housing Act to Ireland came up at the end of last year, all parties in Ireland were most anxious that an extension of the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, should immediately be granted to Ireland. Every party in the House was anxious that that should be done, and it was agreed to then. Of course, the local Parliaments will not be able to deal with the matter of housing for some considerable time. The Amendment will enable the housing subsidy to be granted for a period longer than that granted under the Housing (Additional Powers) Act. Under this Bill the subsidy can be granted to houses finished before October, 1922.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: This is a very interesting Amendment, and I congratulate the learned Solicitor-General for Ireland on the illusion which he scattered about the House in moving it. To hear him one would think this was a matter of no importance whatever; but it is a matter of very great importance, if for no other reason than that it commits us to a subsidy for all houses commenced in Ireland after June, 1922, and completed up to October. I object to our committing ourselves to an altogether indefinite sum for house building in Ireland.

Lieut.-Colonel ALLEN: It is limited.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am glad to hear it is limited. The fact that the Irish Members are agreed upon it carries no weight with me. Hon. Members opposite representing the North
of Ireland and those on this side, representing the remainder may disagree on every other point, but they immediately agree if it is a matter of taking money from the British Exchequer. In this case we are asked to pay money which we have not got, because further down on the Order Paper is an extraordinary proposal to sanction more borrowing by the Government to make ends meet. I do not want to enlarge on another aspect of the matter, but I may point out that the elections of the Paliaments in North and South of Ireland have been held. I dare say hon. Members representing the North of Ireland are patting themselves on the back at the result, although I cannot congratulate them. Why cannot they raise the money for their own houses? Why should they still come to us, even within a few days of the carrying out of the elections, which we are told by Government spokesmen have proved the success of the Government of Ireland Act?

Mr. D. M. WILSON: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension Any subsidy made to Ireland for the houses comes out of Irish money—the Irish share of the reserved taxes. Not one penny of British money except money raised in Ireland will go to this subsidy, so the hon. and gallant Member is under a mistaken impression.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Then I really cannot understand the necessity for this at all. The hon. and learned Gentleman's explanation meets one part of my objection, but it only strengthens another part. This grant is a matter for the Irish Parliaments, and we ought not to take any responsibility whatever, moral, material or otherwise for housing in Ireland. I have a final objection that it is perfectly ridiculous to talk about building houses in Ireland as soon as June, 1922. The hon. and learned Gentleman himself could hardly suppress a smile when he was explaining this to the House. We on this side admire his sangfroid in talking about house building in Ireland in the present conditions. When houses are being burned down daily over a very large area of the country; when the forces of the Crown by order and with the approval of the Cabinet, as we have been told, are burning down houses at the rate of forty a week or more, what is the good of asking for house-building legislation.
It is absurd; it is the good old ostrich policy of putting our heads in the sand, and I for one will not be a party to such a farce on the part of the Mother of Parliaments. I shall vote against this ridiculous proposal, and I am sure that hon. and learned Gentlemen will be with me in spirit.

Mr. SPEAKER: The proposed new Schedule—[Provisions as to the compulsory hiring of houses by local authorities]—is, as I have already indicated, out of order, inasmuch as it imposes a new charge on public funds.

Motion made and question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Sir A. Mond.]

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: I wish briefly to express the regret which I am sure all hon. Members feel that the right hon. Gentleman has seen fit to emasculate and strangle one of the infants handed on to him by his predecessor. In the Bill as produced last year a Clause was inserted enabling local authorities to acquire houses withheld from occupation, and the Committee upstairs, by the casting vote of the Chairman, that Clause was struck out. I want now to draw attention to the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman for the withdrawal of that Clause. The right hon. Gentleman declared that the present shortage of houses was being overcome. If that statement goes out through the Press uncontradicted it will have a really deplorable effect, because anyone who knows anything about large industrial centres are aware that it is the fact that the present need for houses is not being overcome. It may be that not so much is heard to-day of the shortage; it may be that ex-Service men in Manchester are not taking by force the houses such as they seized upon last year, but surely, it is hardly in keeping with the desire we have to avoid direct action if when people become law abiding and seek constitutional means for remedying the hardships and grievances under which they suffer the Government turn round on them and say there is no need now to provide more houses or rather that the existing need is being met. Go where one will, we know that the 45,000 houses which the right hon. Gentleman says have
been built as against the 500,000 houses to be required at the time of the Armistice constitutes but a travesty of the situation. It is merely putting off the evil day. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, in his reply, if he speaks presently, will modify the impression created in Committee that there is no need now to explore for an avenue of progress to meet present needs.
Only last week in my constituency an ex-Service man came to me on this matter. It is a typical case. I have no doubt all hon. Members have had similar cases brought to their notice. This man fought for three and a half years overseas. In July, 1919, he put his name down for one of the municipal houses in course of erection. He has meantime been occupying a room in a four-roomed house in which there are three other families. When he asked the local authority when his turn for a new house would arrive he was told, "You are a long way down the list; you will have to wait much longer because there are more pressing cases than yours."I went to the Town Hall to investigate and make sure of the facts in this case. I was told it was perfectly true that the man lived in a four-roomed house with three other families, but because he had no family. There was only his wife and himself, his case was not sufficiently urgent, because there were so many other ex-service men with families, living under even worse conditions, whose cases must first be attended to. Now that case has occurred in a town which is not behind other towns in the matter of house building. It has already built over 200, and this compares very favourably with other towns. I have quoted only one case. There are hundreds of others. It will be very unfortunate if these men are to get the idea that the Government are in any way relaxing their efforts to provide houses. It will not make for content. It may be that the discontent is not so loudly expressed at the moment. The unfortunate thing is that the people are getting into a despairing mood and are not clamouring for houses, but are becoming accustomed to a chronic state of overcrowding. I therefore protest against this Clause being dropped. Although it may not have proved effective in providing many houses, it would certainly have opened out one other avenue for providing, at no great cost to the ratepayers, a
number of houses at present being withheld for occupation. I hope the Minister will make up for having dropped this Clause by bringing pressure to bear on local authorities to expedite the building of houses which are still so urgently needed.

Mr. LORDEN: I want to draw the attention of the Minister to that part of this Bill about which there is a good deal of feeling among the various local authorities, particularly the London boroughs, that is Clause 8, which was Clause 9 before the Bill went to Committee, That seems to whittle away some of their powers under Section 41 of the Housing Act, 1919. They are very concerned about it. In Committee, I obtained from the Minister an Amendment to the Clause, but they are still very apprehensive that some of their powers are going to be whittled away, and I hope when the Minister replies he will give us some idea that it is not intended to take away from the borough councils that power which they very much value. There is one point with regard to subsidies to which. I would like to refer, and that is that while this is the cheapest form of subsidy, it does behove the Government, and the Minister particularly, to see where we are getting to with this cost for housing. The houses which are being erected are costing so much that those people for whom they are intended have not the means to occupy them on account of the high rates and other charges, and therefore it does behove the Minister to look into this question of housing to see whether some means cannot be found to reduce the cost, and to ensure a supply of houses at a reasonable figure, so that those people who should occupy them, can occupy them.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: When the Minister replies I want him to answer one or two questions, if he will be so kind. The first and most important, from my point of view, is, can he tell us anything with regard to building guilds? I saw by the Press that a deputation went to him last week. I was to have accompanied that deputation, but it was thought better that there should be no Members of Parliament present, and, as I was very busy, I was not sorry; but I have the disadvantage of not knowing
what went on, nor have I been in communication with any of the leaders of the guild building movement. I am, however, intensely interested in it, as everyone who takes an interest in problems of industry and labour must be, and I am sure hon. Members must have viewed this experiment with the very greatest interest. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor bowed to certain pressure which was put upon his Department, and both he, and, I am sorry to say, the permanent officials, blocked and obstructed, and did their best to discourage the guild building scheme. I do not wish to say that this was done the whole time. In the first place, they encouraged it, and then they bowed to the pressure, and began to put difficulties in the way. Now the right hon. Gentleman has taken the onerous post of Minister of Health, and I would like him to reply to a definite question as to his position in this matter. Is it one of hostility held in common with the master builders of the country? Naturally they are hostile and cannot bear the idea of working men undertaking work at cheaper rates than they are prepared to accept. They do not like the arrangement under the guild building scheme of an insurance fund for pay during bad weather. I want to know if the Minister of Health shares these prejudices and want of sympathy with this most promising, as it is the most revolutionary, movement that is now taking place in this country, and it is a peaceful and constitutional revolution.
I only wish to just mention the great success of the scheme so far in Manchester and district, because there the bricklayers on the guild scheme are laying more bricks per day than those now working for private employers. The explanation of this is that the men are working for themselves and that is a direct incentive to do more work. Of course if we sympathise with the master builders we must sympathise sometimes with these men. The incentive to produce more is just the same in the case of allotment holder—

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that is a little beyond the subject which we are now discussing. It is rather a matter of administration, and would be more appropriate on the Vote for the Minister's salary.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: We are now proposing to continue the subsidy, and the whole difficulty has been the Objection of the Ministry to pay this subsidy to the Guild building schemes.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not the subsidy referred to in this Bill.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not wish to press my point. Up and down the country there is an impression amongst local authorities and many other people that the Government is quietly dropping this great housing scheme, and although it was stated that 500,000 houses were required there is an impression that the Government will be content with 200,000. I think the Minister of Health ought to take this opportunity of denying those statements. Local authorities are now declaring that they understand that any reduction of their schemes will not be looked upon unfavourably by the Ministry of Health. That is a state of things which I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to deny, and he should tell us if the Government intend to go through with their housing scheme in order to relieve the housing congestion of the country. There may be houses to let in the West End of London, but housing conditions in the North are still very bad. The other day I had a long conversation on this subject with the Town Clerk of Hull—

Mr. SPEAKER: That is quite plainly an administrative act. The Minister will not be able to make his reply now, and he can only reply when the Vote for his salary is before the Committee.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I regret that there has not been some speeding up of the Clause in connection with the clearing of slum areas.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): I am afraid that I cannot reply to the points which have been raised by the hon. and gallant Member who spoke last with regard to general policy, but if he will do me the honour of reading what I said on this subject when it was brought before the House on a former occasion, he will see that it was dealt with by me. With regard to the new Clause amending the Act of 1919 relating to the London Metropolitan borough councils, in the Act of 1919 there was a defect in the Clause dealing with the question of the payment of housing expenses by a
Metropolitan borough council. Any loss incurred by such a council came within the housing scheme to be repaid by the London County Council, and all questions of administration of that character fell on the London County Council. The object of the Clause in the present Bill is to remedy this defect. The intention is that Regulations should be issued applying to Metropolitan borough councils the same kind of provisions as are applied to all other local authorities by the Housing Assisted Schemes Regulations. It will be observed that by Sub-section (2) it is provided that the Regulations proposed to be made under this Clause are to be laid before Parliament so that the hon. Member (Mr. Lorden) and the Metropolitan borough councils will have an opportunity of challenging any Regulations so made. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough does not, I am sure, intend to misrepresent me. What I said in Committee, and one of the reasons I gave, and the only one, why I advocated the omission of this particular Clause, was that more and more the present needs of housing were being overcome. Towards that we had the assistance of about 47,000 houses which had been completed. I never said that was the complete housing programme, or that that would deal with all the over-crowding in the country. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do the number of these houses in the course of construction at the present time; therefore that they are coming daily more rapidly into operation. Glance at the position. It was thought that such a proposal as that of Clause I might have been of some assistance to the local authorities, I repeat my one object in dropping this Clause was that I saw that it was not necessary nor useful, and was only holding out illusory hopes. In confirmation of that I found that in August, 1919, investigation had been made by the Housing Commissioners among all the urban district councils of a population of more than 20,000, who were asked to return the vacant houses in their areas suitable for conversion into flats. Returns were received from a number of authorities. Fifty local authorities rendered no returns, but the number of houses stated in the returns to be convertible was 782, and of these only 187 could be regarded as suitable. That shows at that time the number was infinitesimal.

Mr. THOMSON: The right hon. Gentleman does not, I suppose, want to misrepresent me. What I intended to say was that this Bill does not deal with the conversion of flats or houses. It expressly excludes any houses which are to be reconstructed. My Clause merely deals with houses which without reconstruction are being kept empty or withheld from occupation.

Sir A. MOND: What I was pointing out was that of the 782 houses only 187 would come under a Clause of this kind and become available for working-class houses throughout the whole country and that number is infinitesimal. I myself was astonished at the smallness of it. I pointed out in Committee that the local authorities have power, and it would be better business and sounder to acquire the houses now, because that would possibly be cheaper than building new ones. If they are available the compulsory powers of 1919 deal with that aspect. I say it would be a mistake to have a Clause in the Bill which would achieve nothing practicable.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (SCOTLAND) [GRANTS].

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of grants under Section one of the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, in respect of houses in Scotland completed, in the case of houses as respects which any assistance is provided by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, within three years and six months, and in the case of any other houses within two years and six months of the passing of that Act, or such further period, not exceeding four months, as the Scottish Board of Health may in any special case allow, and to limit the aggregate amount of such grants in respect of houses in Scotland."—[Mr. Pratt.]

The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY for HEALTH for SCOTLAND (Mr. Pratt): There are three purposes in this Resolution. It is proposed to extend the time during which the subsidy is to be paid to the builders to June, 1922. In giving the Third Reading
to the Bill which has just been disposed of the House has extended the period during which the subsidy may be paid in England and Wales, and the Resolution asks that the same extension of time should be granted to Scotland. In the second place the Resolution asks for the further extension of twelve months in the case of those houses which are being built with the assistance of the Scottish Board of Agriculture in the crofting areas. The Committee is well aware of the special economic and social difficulties in dealing with housing problems in the crofting areas. Crofters have not only had the difficulties in regard to labour and materials which are common throughout the country, but they have special difficulties in the way of building their houses in time to earn the subsidy because they are away at the fishing during a large part of the building season of the year. They, therefore, have a claim for a longer period, on that and other grounds, and in this Bill it is proposed to give such approved schemes a further period of twelve months, so that in the case of crofters the subsidy may be paid until 23rd June, 1923, and in all other cases until 23rd June, 1922.
12 M.
In the third place, the Resolution asks that the share which is to accrue to Scotland, on the Goschen basis, of the £15,000,000 provided by the Additional Powers Act, 1919, shall be limited to £1,650,000. Therefore, although the time is extended for 12 months in the case of croftings that was not meant it will lead to any larger proportion of the total sum which Parliament has already approved of going to Scotland. I am not asking for any extra money. We are asking only for the money that has already been approved of, but we are asking that in one set of cases there should be an additional period to bring us into line with England and Wales, and in the special cases of the crofters there will be a further additional period.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. HOPE: I do not wish in any way to oppose the Resolution, but I am induced to think the Under-Secretary is a little too obvious in his request. He says that the £1,650,000 is the Scottish share of the £15,000,000 on the Goschen basis. That is all right; but then he goes on to say that of this sum it is assumed that a sum not exceeding
£1,140,000 will be expended in consequence of the extension of the time proposed. Does that mean that Scotland is to sacrifice some £500,000 of her share of the £15,000,000? Surely it does not matter to anyone outside Scotland how this money is spent, so long as we do not exceed our fair share of the £15,000,000, and we could make arrangements so that this fair share should be spent on housing in Scotland. I suggest that a simple way would be to extend the period, not only for houses in crofting areas, which have peculiar claims, but also for all houses in Scotland, till 23rd June, 1923.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: It will be refreshing if Scottish Members who ask politely questions respecting this Resolution, and put a reasoned case before the Committee, do not receive a reply of the kind given by the Minister of Transport to the reasoned case put by Scottish Members in the Debate which was concluded a little time ago. Those of us who represent the crofting areas in Scotland welcome this Bill, and are grateful to the Minister of Health and the Chairman of the Scottish Board of Health for what they have done in this matter. We know the difficulties of the crofters, and) this will be a welcome assistance to them in the difficult times through which they are passing. I desire to emphasise what has been said by the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Hope), and to ask whether it is indeed suggested that Scotland should sacrifice £500,000 of the aggregate sum of £1,650,000, I cannot believe that that is so. The Resolution provides for the extension of the period to three years and six months in cases in which any loan has been or is being made by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, and to two years and six months in the case of any other houses. Perhaps I am dense, but I am not quite certain what is implied by that difference which is made between a house which is being built out of a loan provided by the Board and any other house, and I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would kindly explain what that difference is.

Mr. PRATT: The figure mentioned in the White Paper is based upon our expectation as to what is possible in regard to
the building of houses during the period named. It is quite possible that our expectation may be exceeded, and if that is the case we are entitled to receive up to the full sum of £1,650,000.

Lieut. - Colonel MURRAY: What happens if that aggregate sum is not reached? Does it lapse?

Mr. PRATT: The position is this: Parliament granted a sum of £15,000,000 in the Act of 1919, and there was a statutory limit of time, which was twice prolonged. That sum may be claimed up to the 23rd December, 1922, in England, Wales and Scotland, and in the case of whatever approved building schemes are finished by that date the grants and subsidies will be available. In addition to that, as I have said, there is an extra twelve months for the crofting area. With regard to the question of my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Colonel A. Murray) as to the wording of the Resolution, the term of three years and six months refers to houses in the crofting area, and, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows, these are schemes which receive assistance under Section 9 of the Small Landowners Act, 1911, and Section 4 of the Congested Districts Board Act, 1897. The period from the beginning to December, 1923, is 3½ years, and it has reference only to the houses in the crofting areas. The term of 2½ years is from the beginning of the period set out to December, 1923, and the next year.

Major W. MURRAY: May I as whether this Resolution exactly covers the hon. Gentleman's explanation? In the case of houses in respect of which assistance is provided by the Board of Agriculture in Scotland within three years and six months, surely that covers a very much larger number of houses than those in the crofting areas. The Board of Agriculture for Scotland provides assistance for a large number of crofters' holdings. I suggest that perhaps the difference between the £1,100,000 and £1,600,000 may be intended to be spent upon the second class of houses I have mentioned.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — OVERSEAS TRADE [CREDITS AND INSURANCES].

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient to extend the Overseas Trade (Credits and Insurance) Act, 1920, to the giving of guarantees in connection with export transactions and to amend the said Act as regards the countries in respect of which it applies, and to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums required in connection with the giving of such guarantees, so, however, that the amounts outstanding at any time in respect of credits and guarantees shall not together exceed the amount now authorised under the said Act as regards credits, and of any expenses incurred by the Board of Trade by reason of such extension and amendment of the said Act as aforesaid."—[Sir P. Lloyd-Greame.]

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): This Resolution is to give effect to the policy which was announced and very fully debated on 9th March on the Vote on Account. It is the purpose of the Government to extend the Export Credits scheme in two directions. Firstly, the Government have been very strongly pressed to give a general extension. They decided to extend it beyond the immediate countries which we were entitled to operate under the Act to the British Empire, and the reasons which govern their decision were very fully stated on that occasion by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The other direction in which it was proposed to extend it was this. At present the scheme operates by way of direct advance. It is now proposed to operate it by way of guarantee of bills of exchange drawn against shipment. I think that will appeal to everyone as a very practical extension, because it will enable business to be done in the ordinary business way with the maximum of Government assistance and the minimum of Government interference.
May I add one word with regard to the extension of the scheme to the British Empire? That, I think, was received with general assent and was very cordially welcomed, but in one part of the British Empire, certainly, there are certain considerations which require special treatment, and that in India and the British possessions in the Far East. There have been conditions operating there under
which obligations were outstanding which have not been honoured to the full, and it is obviously extremely desirable that no facilities for credit should be extended if those facilities could operate in any way to prevent those engaging in trade from taking up their whole obligations. My right hon. Friend has been in consultation with the banks operating in those areas and with the India Office and the Colonial Office. It is not the intention, although the terms of the Resolution and the Bill will apply in general terms to the British Empire, to extend the operations of the scheme to India and the British possessions in the Far East, and we shall certainly not do so until conditions are such as to obviate those difficulties.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Which are the mandatory areas referred to?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: It extends to any areas over which the British Government has a mandate. [Interruption.] I think it is simple. I said India and the Far East would be excluded. That would exclude Ceylon and the Straits Settlements. The area is perfectly well understood, and, I think, generally appreciated. Also this further consideration applies. We do not give these Government advances where business can be done through the ordinary trade channels. They are supplementary and not in substitution, and when conditions are restored, if business can be done in the Far East and India through the ordinary banking channels it will be unnecessary to bring this into operation in those quarters. With regard to operations by way of guarantee, the reasons prompting that were very fully explained on the previous occasion. We have been pressed very strongly to put that into operation as quickly as possible, and we shall do so when this Resolution has received the assent of the House. I know there has been a certain amount of delay, but at the same time I am sure it is very important in a scheme like this to get general assent and to get it in the best possible form in which we could operate it, and one of the reasons why there has been a certain amount of delay is that a very full discussion has taken place with the Associated Chambers of Commerce.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is now dealing with the administration of
the Department. On the previous occasion Mr. Speaker ruled that that was not permissible.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I beg pardon. As soon as the House has given its assent to this Resolution, we shall proceed with the scheme, which, I think, has already commanded the general assent of the business community, and I feel sure will command the assent of the House.

Major BARNES: How much has been disbursed under the Act so far?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Contracts to advance about £2,500,000 have been made, and actual advances up to about £750,000 have, I think, been made. This proposal does not extend the amount of money which is authorised by the previous Act, but it enables us to operate with the £26,000,000 authorised in the previous Act in what I hope will be a more expeditious and convenient manner.

Mr. SAMUEL SAMUEL: There has been a great deal of correspondence with the Board of Trade in reference to the suggestion which is contained in this Resolution. I am surprised, after the last communication from the Board of Trade to the bankers, that they have brought this in at all, because it is wholly unnecessary so far as the British Empire is concerned. Apparently the Board of Trade are entirely ignorant or the banking methods of conducting business within the British Empire. Any firm or company whose credit is worth anything can get their shipments financed to any part of the British Emipre—any firm which has goods to ship to Australia, India, Hong Kong, Ceylon, the Straits Settlements, or North Borneo even which is not so well provided with banking facilities, or South Africa. There are British banks by the dozen which are willing to buy commercial bills on any of those places provided that the credit of the firm on this side is good. They do not even look at the acceptors of the bill.
I will give you one example to prove this, because the Overseas Trade Department sent out to different countries their representatives to give information to the merchants and manufacturers of this country. The result is, the Board of Trade know perfectly well, that large numbers of manufacturers received orders from native traders in India and China.
The methods adopted were very simple. The native traders went to the representative of the Overseas Trade Department and asked to be put in communication with responsible people in this country to whom they could apply for commodities. They were put into communication and the traders sent orders and wrote to the manufacturers that they had opened credits with the National Bank of India or the Chartered Bank or one of the other large banks, and then the manufacturers shipped these goods and drew against them. These firms, with experience of trading in these countries, sent out samples and goods and drew against them.
After that, orders followed and credits were opened with these banks, which were acted on by manufacturers, but for a period after the War when everything was booming the manufacturers shipped out quantities of goods to these various markets, and other credits had been opened, and the firms drew bills on the native traders abroad. In the meantime while these goods were in transit the market went down, and when the goods arrived in India and other places the local merchants simply refused to take them up.
It is no secret that the markets in the East are simply flooded with British goods which it is impossible to sell, and on top of this we have the Government stepping in to say, "We are going to assist somebody else to intensify the fearful glut which exists."The intention of the original Bill was to deal with the cases of countries like Roumania, Esthonia, and others, where there were no banking facilities. The exchange in those countries was such that it was impossible to send any remittances to this country during a given period, and the Government wanted to assist trade for responsible merchants, who could put up security, until such time as the exchanges became more normal and they could remit or could ship goods against the goods which they got from England. A certain amount of that trade has been done through the intermediary of the Government, but a great deal of trade has been done without the assistance of the Government. Now that the Government wish to extend that system, I would refer the President of the Board of Trade to the commercial history of this country and of India. He will find that even in the
times of the old East India Company there was an enormous amount of trade between this country and India, and now it has developed to even more gigantic proportions, and it is ridiculous for the Board of Trade to come forward to-day to interfere in the normal conduct of the business of houses that have been established for a century or more. Some 57 houses have been there for 100 or 150 years, and now that the Government come in these houses will not know where they are at all, because they will not know when the Government are going to interfere, and how the Government are going to interfere, and what adventurers are to be assisted. What the Government do not appreciate is that one of the causes of the stagnation in the export trade arises from the fact that the markets of these countries have been flooded and that owing to the poverty of Europe there is no market for their produce. If there were a market in the countries of Europe—in Germany, France and Italy, which are all virtually bankrupt now—for the seeds, jute and other articles produced by our colonies that would right exchange, and the normal trade would come back again as it has been for generations past. The more the Government try by artificial means to remedy the state of affairs the more they will make it difficult for those who have carried on the trade for generations to keep it going until conditions become normal again. It is absolutely useless to try and oppose this Resolution. There would be no possible chance of success, but I do enter on behalf of the bankers who have carried on that trade willingly, and are willing to carry it on, and also on behalf of the merchants, the strongest protest I possibly can against the interference of the Government with the trade that has been carried on successfully against the whole world.

Major BARNES: We ought to lodge a protest against a proposal of this far-reaching character being brought on at this hour. It is a proposal to make a very great change indeed upon the policy which the House approved when it accepted the original Bill dealing with this overseas trade. I wish also to make a further protest against the manner in which this has been placed before the House. The hon. Member in charge of the Resolution told us that the reasons for this very great extension of policy had
been very fully stated on 9th March, and, therefore, it was not necessary to repeat them. I have turned up the records of the Debate on 9th March to see what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on this subject. We voted a sum of £26,000,000 for a very definite purpose—to establish trade with countries in Europe which were in such a disturbed condition that the people in those places could not give the credit which our merchants thought they should have. To-day we are asked to extend this to all parts of the British Empire, including Protectorates and mandated territories, for reasons which the hon. Member who introduced the Resolution said were fully stated on 9th March. Let me read the whole of the reasons put forward in that Debate. This is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said at the end of a long Debate on the original scheme:
I think we should extend this, not merely to the derelict countries of Europe, but that we should give similar facilities in cases, say, of our own Dominions, where, after all, security is much safer and the business is in every respect just as good or better, and there is a greater quality of permanence about it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th March, 1921; col. 546, Vol. 139.]
That is every word said on 9th March in support of this extension and change of policy. These are what are called by the hon. Member reasons fully stated. I submit that the object of this Resolution is to cover the ghastly failure of the original scheme. The position is that the Board of Trade has got £26,000,000 and they do not want to part with it. Within the last 12 months they have only got some £780,000 taken up, and there is some £2,500,000 given as a guarantee. They have £23,500,000 in their hands and they do not know what to do with it. They want our permission to spend this money, and the amazing thing is that we are asked to do this at a time when the next Motion on the Paper, which will come on in a few minutes, is to write off £23,000,000 wasted by the Government in speculation and trade. If hon. Members will look at the Paper they will see that the next Motion is to ask the House for permission to write off £23,050,000, a sum almost identical with what they have in hand now on the Overseas Vote. I submit that the only policy is to stop this amazing attitude with regard to trade. Let the Government pay this money back
into the Consolidated Fund, where at least it will be set off against the money already lost. There is no reason in any shape or form that can be given for this extension. The object of the original proposal was to trade with countries which did not possess conditions of security which existed under the British flag; countries torn by revolution, devastated by war. These were the countries with which no trader could trade. It was to help trade with these countries that we agreed to the original proposal. Now it is proposed to extend the advantage to countries under the British flag. The Dominions, I understand, are included. In all these places there is security, and there is credit, and there is no more reason for giving people facilities for trading than there is for giving people to trade within the United Kingdom. Why should not people who want to trade with Hull or Scotland have advantages of this sort? I wish to ask the hon. Member a very pertinent question. Will facilities to all parts of the British Empire include facilities for trading inside the United Kingdom?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Devastated Ireland!

Major BARNES: And Ireland. I understand that trade is not to take place with India. I submit that the Committee has not been treated with the frankness to which it is entitled. The reasons for the change of policy were not fully stated on 9th March, and before the House gives permission for this policy, I submit it is entitled to a much fuller statement of the case than we have had.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I totally disagree with what has been said by the last two hon. Members. I expect we shall have further academic reasons from the two other hon. Gentlemen on my right, who have not been engaged in trade all their lives, so far as I am aware. They will tell us that traders ought not to have this proposed advantage. The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. S. Samuel) spoke from the point of view of the banks, and I do not regard him as I do the two hon. Gentlemen on my right.

Mr. S. SAMUEL: I speak from the letter of protest written by the Manchester Chamber of Commerce to the President of the Board of Trade.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: May I say, as a director of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not in order.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I happened to be present when the representative of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce took part with the representatives of all the other chambers of commerce of Great Britain and Ireland, and if my memory serves me right Manchester expressed the same objection as the hon. Member for Putney, who said that the Government should not give credits by this scheme to India, as such credits would induce certain people in India to dishonour their obligations, as they had done in the immediate past, or, at least, not until these Indian importers had squared up their debts of the past. As attention has been drawn to the Association of British Chambers of Commerce—

Mr. S. SAMUEL: The Manchester Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I say that the representative of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce was present when the resolution was passed by all the chambers. I moved it and it was passed unanimously. There is no use telling me what I do know is not absolutely the whole position. I was actually present and a resolution was passed unanimously, which I myself moved, welcoming this proposal. It is on record. There is no getting away from that—although Manchester did demur to certain aspects in the proposals. If the channels of which the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Samuel Samuel) tells us are available for the export trade, they will be used. The export merchants of this country will only be too pleased to use them, delighted to use them, because they do not want to be bothered with going to the State, with all its red tape regulations. They will only go to the Board of Trade when they cannot get the banks to deal with a matter. We can put aside all idea of the traders of this country wanting Government control or interference or help. They loathe it. They only turn to the Government to help them when their goods cannot be sold to foreign countries through the ordinary channels of credit, that is to say, the banks and financial houses which the hon. Member for Putney represents.

Mr. S. SAMUEL: Banks do not sell the goods at all.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: The hon. and gallant Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes) says that no reason can be given for this proposal. I will give a good reason. We want the wheels of industry to go round, and you will not bring that about while the warehouses are blocked with goods that you cannot get out to the consumer, and we will not get those goods out if the credit of the various countries of the world is so bad that the banks will not endorse or take up the bills which traders must take from their foreign customers in payment for those goods. In order to sell the goods and to start the wheels again, and to employ labour to refill the warehouses and stop unemployment doles, the Government should be asked to come in and put its name on the back of the bills in order to get exports of goods restarted. I do not think that in the long run the Government will lose a farthing. Meantime, unemployment doles are a loss to the Government. The hon. and gallant Member for East Newcastle may make all sorts of ill-informed play about those credits, but let us get down to the facts. Exporters and manufacturers have gone into this position very thoroughly on two occasions, and, so far as I understand, the position, the importers abroad, who are going to buy these goods from Britain, will be compelled to put up a very large amount of security to entitle them to credit. That security will, in my opinion, cover whatever guarantee may be put by the Government on the back of the bills. Then the hon. and gallant Member for East Newcastle asks if Hull will benefit. Of course, every city in England will benefit. We live by our export trade, and if traders of Hull or any other city require to be assisted in a way which the banks cannot assist they can go to the Board of Trade and ask that those foreign bills should be taken up or guaranteed in the way the proposal provides.

Major BARNES: I do not think the hon. Member quite takes my point. My point was that the exporter in Hull would benefit as much as the exporter in Manchester, but why should the person trading with Canada have greater advantages than the person who is trading with Hull?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: For this reason: If the hon. and gallant Member had been in the export trade he would know that people trading with Hull find no difficulty in getting bills of Hull traders taken up for goods sold. Every one in Hull is known by the home banks, and Hull people's credit is infinitely superior to that of a foreign buyer.

Mr. S. SAMUEL: Or for goods sold for any of the British Colonies or possessions.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Yes, they do. At the present time there are thousands of pounds worth of goods ordered, which we should like to send to Australia—and to people of honour and good credit in Australia. That is an answer to the hon. Gentleman opposite; but the firms at home cannot get the bills collected; you cannot get paid, because of the question of exchange. The hon. Gentleman opposite asked me if we were in difficulties with any other part of the British Empire. I have told him the bill position between England and Australia is in a frozen state. Exchange is blocked with Australia.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: What! A question of exchange within the British Empire!

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Yes. The hon. Gentleman who has interrupted me shows his ignorance of the hampered way in which trade at present is carried on in this country with Australia. We have been into this matter for some weeks and considered it, and I stand here, not only as a Member of Parliament, but as representing the exporters and the Association of Chambers of Commerce, to say that we think this is a first-class measure, likely to benefit workpeople and manufacturers at no great cost to the Government, and we want it to go through.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: I am really astonished at the speech of the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel), because he seems to assume that when the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Samuel Samuel) speaks of international trade and banking he is as well informed as himself, and as for the hon. and gallant Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes)—and I have no doubt that I am included in the combination—we are so utterly unacquainted with commercial proceedings that in his presence
apparently we are unworthy to speak. The hon. Member for Farnham has intervened to point out to the Committee the difficulties of the exchanges within the British Empire. What a master of the export trade! It is difficult to conduct business with Australia, because of the exchanges! And this is the master of finance, in whose presence less well-informed Members like my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, who, I suppose, is an infant in business compared with the hon. Member for Farnham, ought to shrink! This great authority, is from time to time a protagonist of the popular cause of economy. May I draw attention to the fact that the sum involved here is £26,000,000, and that this is one-eighth—

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not want to mislead the Committee. If this Resolution is passed, not one single farthing more will be voted out of public funds, because it is already included in the existing Act.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: I want the Committee to be aware of the extent of this business. £26,000,000 is little more than one-eighth of the total expenditure upon the Government of this country before the War. The Department has been working for two years and has actually expended only between £700,000 and £800,000 and has commitments of £2,500,000, and now it is proposed to extend its powers to give guarantees upon business which, as the hon. Member for Putney says, will, if it is good business, be done by the banks, and if it is not good business the finances of this country do not permit it to be done at the expense of the taxpayer. I should like to ask the Secretary to the Overseas Department how much trade his Department has been able to secure for British manufacturers or merchants which they would not have been able to secure in the ordinary way of business? The third Clause of this Resolution says that it is proposed that the Department shall be able to exercise these powers in the case of new guarantees before 8th September, 1922, and in the case of a renewal of a guarantee up to 1924. It is further proposed that no guarantee shall be enforced
after 8th September, 1925. How long is this Overseas Department going on? September, 1925, is nearly 4½ years from now.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not quite see from where the hon. Member gets his dates. They are not in the text that I have.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: Excuse me, I think they are in the third Clause. I was quoting from the Resolution.

The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is speaking of an entirely different Resolution.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: I beg pardon, Sir.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask if in discussing the Resolution we are not entitled to quote from the explanatory memorandum which was issued by the Overseas Trade Department?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member was discussing another Resolution and quoted certain dates as being in the third Clause of the Resolution, evidently having his eye lower down on the page.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: I was quoting, of course, from the White Paper which has been issued, and with great respect I should have thought it was quite in order to refer to it. The object of this White Paper is to enable the Committee to judge as to the wisdom or otherwise, from a business point of view, of approving this alteration of the original authority being transferred merely from credits to guarantees. What is a growing opinion in the minds of commercial men is that the sooner the Government gets out of business altogether the better for business throughout the country and the better for the Exchequer. I do not think there is a responsible business man in this country but who would be very glad if, far from the Department of Overseas Trade having extended powers in the use of this sum of £26,000,000 which we are asked to vote, their powers were not merely curtailed, but if the hon. Gentleman knew within a certain limit of time, and the earlier the better, that the Department of Overseas Trade was to be wound up. It is a natural, I suppose an inevitable, result of the conduct of business in this country after the War; but it is not a healthy
thing, and it is a sign of decrepitude in British business when we need a Government Department to enable our traders to trade overseas. The fact is that our British traders are capable of trading in every part of the world without the advice, the guidance, the leadership, the credit, or the guarantees of any Government Department whatsoever. If the hon. Gentleman can stand at the Treasury Box and reply to criticisms and say, "I will inform the Committee of orders of millions of pounds of trade which would never come to British business men save for my Department, I will tell the Committee of contracts for millions which have been secured through these credits; I can assure the Committee that if we had the powers we are asking we can give guarantees, and unemployment will be lessened—

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Representatives of the Bradford Chamber of Commerce came up to a meeting and they said in the presence of the Minister that they wanted to bid for a large amount of trade in the near East for which they could not get the ordinary credit from the bankers, and they asked for some scheme of this kind, and indeed they had drawn up one for the Government to adopt. Part of the present scheme has been adjusted to meet the views and needs of Bradford.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: There is no need for the hon. Gentleman to interrupt me. I was asking the Minister to rise at the box and reply to questions. To whom were the credits given and to whom were the guarantees to be given. The authority for so large a sum as £26,000,000 ought to be given with the greatest reluctance by a Committee of this House in so far as it relates to British trade. It is without precedent and apparently it is without purpose or profit, and now they are asking for an extension because the Department has proved utterly futile in the creation of business which could have been conducted in the ordinary business way. At nearly five minutes to one the Committee is asked to discuss a sum of £26,000,000, one-eighth of the total expenditure of this country before the War, and the Minister has not given us one single bit of evidence upon which this Committee could rely in the way of business which has been secured because of the intervention of his Department; nor
can he give this Committee an assurance of business which will be brought because of this extension of guarantees. I earnestly hope that with the country's eyes upon us when we are dealing with so vast a sum as £26,000,000 this Committee will refuse to pass it.

Captain EVANS: It is about time that somebody took part in this discussion who does not speak from the capacity of a business representative. If the best that can be said against this Resolution is what has been said by the last speaker as a business man, all I say is that I hope the Government will soon come to the rescue of the business community in this country. It would be difficult to imagine a more irrelevant speech upon this Resolution than that to which we have just listened. The hon. Member, who professes to speak as a business man, has asked the Minister in charge whether he can get up, and say whether any particular business had not been able to go through except by reason of the export credit system, and he was immediately given an instance by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel).

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: I asked whether it had happened.

Captain EVANS: I fancy there is scarcely a Member of this House who has not had instances of such difficulties brought to his notice. I represent a constituency which has no very large business concerns, but even I constantly have my attention drawn to cases of businesses unable to export their goods, because of the difficulties and the lack of an export credit system such as proposed. Therefore it is idle to talk of challenging the Minister to get up, and make a statement of the character he has been asked to make. Curiously enough the hon. Member introduced the question of economy into his speech. One hears a very great deal of economy. We all join in criticising the Government on the subject of extravagance, and in pressing them to exercise economies, but it is time that we realised that the public suffers from extravagance in business as well as from extravagance in Government Departments, and that the public will benefit by the effecting of economies in business just as it will benefit by economies on the part of Departments and public
authorities. Anything that will assist business and its economic administration at the present time will be helpful. Now we have this export credit system. It was first started because it was realised that one of the most important necessities of the country at the present time is the re-establishment of trade. [HON. MEM BERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am very glad to get that admission from so distinguished an authority as the hon. Member for Hull. This Resolution is intended to extend that credit system and improve the trade conditions of this country. While apparently the hon. and gallant Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes) did not object to the original system for improving trade conditions between Great Britain and Central Europe, he now objects to improving the trade conditions between Great Britain and the rest of the Empire. Surely that is a most extraordinary position!

1.0 A.M.

Major BARNES: The point I was making was that there was necessity in the one case, and no necessity in the other.

Captain EVANS: Most hon. Members know that there is a necessity for the extension of this system to parts of the British Empire as well as to countries in Central Europe. If the Government is prepared to establish a system of this character for improving trade conditions, with a view to helping the business concerns of our own country, surely it is only commonsense and common business to seek also an extension of these facilities to other parts of the British Empire. I had some doubts with regard to this Resolution when I first saw it on the Paper, but I am completely satisfied after hearing the objections which have been taken. If certain hon. Members who have spoken speak as representatives of the trade and business of this country, it is a very serious position in which we find ourselves. I agree that we did hear something a little more relevant and material from the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. S. Samuel) than from the other two speakers. He was, however, speaking rather from the point of view not only of the bankers, but also of the large concerns which have none of the difficulties in obtaining facilities
from the banks that small traders experience. Large concerns can look after themselves. Small concerns which cannot get these facilities from the banks are experiencing very great difficulties at the present time. I have listened to many discussions affecting the trade and business of this country. At first I was inclined to put trust in the statements made by those who claimed to speak on behalf of the business community, but my experience has been that, on the whole, perhaps, they are not very safe guides for a House of this character, whose paramount interest is the safeguarding of the interests of the ordinary members of the public. If a man is bitten once by a dog it may be his misfortune; but if he is bitten a second time by the same dog, that is evidence of negligence on his part. I have, therefore, come to the conclusion that one must not accept the advice of those who claim to speak as business men too readily and I am not sure whether, as far as the small trader is concerned, it is advisable to follow the advice they put before the Committee. I am certain, from my own experience, that the policy involved in this proposal will considerably help the small trader, considerably help the public, and do a great deal towards improving trade conditions.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I hope the hon. Member for Cardigan (Captain Evans) will favour us with more such speeches, and with most of it I am sure I agree, in spite of the party attack on my two hon. Friends. We can quite understand the way he talks about the great need of restoring trade and industry. I wish he would talk like that to-morrow when we have these ridiculous Financial Resolutions for safeguarding industries. In a few hours' time the hon. and gallant Member who introduces this Motion will be advocating the imposition of a 33⅓ per cent. duty on goods of countries which have collapsed exchanges, thus putting obstacles in the way of these countries recovering, although we are coming to the overburdened Exchequer and demanding money to subsidise trade for abroad. It is perfectly true our warehouses are blocked with goods. It is perfectly true we are paying unemployment doles. At the same time there are millions of people in Europe who are naked, bootless, and without the machinery and transport with which we could supply them if
only the collapse of the exchanges could be got over. As I have said before, this is only sticking plaster to cover a terrible ulcer. We have seen the ulcer grow grow deeper and larger and the sticking plaster become more inadequate. This Resolution shows the total failure of the Government in its foreign policy. There are unemployed in the streets, and the very existence of the bureaucratic Department—the Department of Overseas Trade—all these things and this Resolution show up the ghastly result of the policy of the "never-enders" and those who favoured the "knock-out blow." They ruined Europe, and I fear that what was the commercial system of this country in the past is smashed beyond repair. Anything which will help British traders I will support. Still, I feel this is inadequate. I feel there will be the same restrictions of guarantees as there were of credits, which is shown by the fact that there was only some £2,500,000 applied for. That shows the system was drawn on too rigid lines.
I have taken the opportunity before of putting with great diffidence what I think is the ony possible cure with the collapsed exchanges, and that is for the Government themselves to trade. This system of guarantee is only scratching at the problem. You run the risks, but you really do not restart the wheels of industry which is absolutely necessary at the present moment. I have one or two practical suggestions to make within the limits of the present hole-and-corner scheme. I still believe, as I said two years ago, that it is a mistake to confine these credits and guarantees entirely to so-called manufactured goods. I put this point with some earnestness to the hon. Member. I believe that the need of these devastated countries is nearly as much for raw materials as for manufactured goods. They want cotton and rubber and sheet iron, and simply to confine the scheme to manufactured goods is a shortsighted policy. If they can produce themselves the problem will be simplied. My second suggestion is with regard to the countries to which this system is to apply. First of all, we have the Border States round Russia, Poland, the Baltic States, Finland. Is Georgia still in? Georgia and Azerbaijan were originally in, but Azerbaijan was taken out. Does the hon. Gentleman still wish to give guarantees
to traders to trade with Georgia? And if you are to give guarantees to traders to trade with Georgia, why not with the great Empire of Russia? We have now signed a trade agreement with Russia since the original overseas trade credit scheme was introduced, and that has very much modified the system. We had a Division in Committee on the very question of including Russia, and at that time the defence of the President of the Board of Trade was that as soon as the trade agreement was signed the Government would favourably consider the inclusion of Russia. The hon. Member for Farnham, who talked about providing work for the unemployed, objected to the trading agreement with Russia. In spite of the fact that there have been great difficulties in trading with Russia so far, since that trading agreement was signed £5,000,000 worth of British goods have been paid for in this country, a very difficult matter in view of the fact that the ownership of Russian gold was not settled by the Courts. Therefore, if later on I propose the inclusion of Russia, I hope the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) will support me.

Lieut. - Commander ASTBURY: The great part of the £5,000,000 was for foodstuffs, and not for goods.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I could go into that matter, but I may mention that some of it was for locomotives and chemicals. I could look up my notes on the matter, but off-hand I would not like to answer the question in detail. I remember Sir George Barker, of the firm of Vickers, saying that the greatest field for British trade to-day was Russia. He is a man with a great knowledge of Russia, and a distinguished member of a very flourishing British concern. If he says that why does not the Department of Overseas Trade back him up and extend the scheme to Russia. That is a practical suggestion that may help unemployment. Why have we not also included Austria?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: We have included it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am very glad to hear it. Then is it wise to extend this scheme to the mandated territories? We are in honour bound not to give any preference to our own subjects in mandatory territories. It may
be that a case has been made out for British territory, but has a scheme been made out for the mandated territories? It may be rather far fetched, but if the hon. Member will look again at the Treaty he will see that it is carefully laid down that there is to be no preference in trade and commerce given to the nationals of the mandatory Power, and I question whether we are wise to extend this scheme. It may be a scheme which will be followed to our detriment in the mandated territories of foreign countries. I do not really know whether to divide against this. It very much depends upon the reply of the hon. Gentleman, and I am averse to doing anything which will assist these wretched countries and our own wretchedness, but I feel that this is altogether too inadequate.

Mr. A. GREEN: I have listened with some interest to the speeches which have been made on this Motion this evening. I have just returned from an extensive tour of the British Colonies and the Dominion of Australia and I can only say that I hope the Committee will see their way to support the Motion. If there was one mistake made when the matter was before the House formerly it was that the House did not at that time include our Colonies and Dominions and Protectorates. Whatever may be said with regard to the success of the scheme so far as the devastated parts of Europe are concerned, I am perfectly certain that has not been because of any lack of sympathy on the part of the Overseas Department, but it has rather been because of the exceeding difficulties of the exchanges which make it almost impossible to do business with certain portions of Europe at the present moment. The hon. Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) has referred to the starving millions in Europe who are not able to pay Great Britain because of their financial condition. If he will make a careful survey of the financial condition of these people he will find that most of them are in that position because of the doctrines of Lenin and Trotsky rather than because of the present lack of industry. As this particular Motion deals more especially with our Colonies and Protectorates, I can only say that in Australia and Canada there is great need for co-operation on the part of the whole of the people of the Empire in order that our relationship should
be more closely cemented. We have heard the views of hon. Members who represent the banking interests. The banking interests are not inclined to help in all cases unless there is absolutely gilt-edged security for any money that they advance. I could give an illustration of an Australian firm with a turnover that would exceed the amount that is asked for even in this particular Resolution, and with individual directors, I have no doubt, each of whom could sign a cheque for a quarter of a million. One of them happened to be stranded in this great city, and he could not get from his bankers, in London an advance of £1,000 to enable him to carry on and to pay his passage and pay his way through this country and back to Australia. What he had to do was to borrow that money from a firm in Sydney that had credit, and to pay an excessive sum for it. During the tour I took I had the sum of £175 due to me from a Sydney house, and they were not allowed to send the money to England. They were not allowed to send more than £100 at a time, but, as always happens in those cases, they were clever enough to outwit their bankers, for they sent me one draft for £100 and another for £75. That sort of thing is perfectly absurd. We cannot at the present time get the credit that is necessary for building up trade between the Mother Country and the Empire which will enable us to employ people who are out of work, and any one who had the opportunity of taking the tour that I took, and seeing what I saw, and hearing the expressions of opinion that I did as to the credit between the Mother Country and the Empire, could have no doubt that he ought to give the Government whole-hearted support, trusting that this is only the beginning of an extensive effort on the part of the Government to develop not only the financial relationships but the commercial relationships between the Mother Country and the different parts of the Empire.

Mr. KILEY: When such distinguished supporters of the Government as my Friend the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. S. Samuel) and my Friend the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) differ as widely as they do, one rather hesitates to intervene, but if I do so it is because the Member for Cardigan (Captain Evans) dwelt in some degree on the small trader. As a small trader
I am glad to be able to get his sympathy, and to express my regret that I did not know what a lot I was missing as a small exporter in not knowing that Cardigan was a county that had much to export. I will, with his permission, study that problem at an early date.

Captain EVANS: I said that it had not.

Mr. KILEY: We will discuss that a little later. The reason I intervene now is that it is something like two years since the proposals now before us for further consideration were first presented to the House. At that time there certainly was need for something to be done in order to promote trade and to find employment for the great mass of men who were coming back, and when the proposals were before this House I did my best to point out to those who were in charge that they were of such a character that they would defeat the object the promoters had in view. I must say, not with much satisfaction, that it has taken the Government two years to act upon the advice that was then given to them. I join issue with the statement made by the hon. Member for Putney. No doubt he was speaking on behalf of the great millionaire firms whose credit is so good and whose resources are so great that they can trade practically without any assistance, but I would like him to imagine the case of the ordinary City of London trader. He sells his goods to India at the top price, based on the exchange of the rupee at 2s. 6d., but when the goods have arrived the rupee had dropped to 1s. 6d. Therefore, instead of the trader having to find 100,000 rupees, he has been called on to find something like 200,000 rupees. He was unable to do this, and did not take up his bill. What did the bankers in this country do? They at once came to the person from whom they purchased the bill, and they said, "The bill has not been taken up; will you hand over the cash that you have received?" In vain did the trader say, "If this man has not taken up the bill, let it be renewed for another 30 days, or another 90 days." The bank said, "We will renew the bill, but will you first hand over the money?" In a limited number of cases that has been done, but it was not possible for every single trader, with his limited facilities, and it would have been a godsend to many of them if the Government scheme had been in opera-
tion. What is the position out in India to-day? It is true that there are vast quantities of certain goods, but only of certain goods, and India is wanting British goods very badly, and so are other parts of the British Empire; and this credit can do something to enable trade to be resumed with Australia until such time as the Australian Government remove their embargo on cash remittances from the other side. It will do something to assist unemployment in this country. One could enlarge and mention other places in the British Empire where these proposals will be very valuable, on one condition, and that is that the rigid system which has been so long enforced by the Overseas Trade Department shall be modified to some extent. It is absurd that in 2½ years the Overseas Trade Department have only been able to make advances totalling about £750,000 sterling; but if they will modify their restrictions, it will do something to promote and encourage trade, and, in my opinion, be far more valuable than the other proposals that we shall be considering in a few hours.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I think there are two or three points on which the Committee may be under some misconception, those Members, at any rate, who have not heard the full discussion, and I should like those points clear. In the first place, this Resolution does not ask for a single penny of new public money which is not already included under the Act. In the second place, reference has been made to the White Paper and to the dates mentioned therein. These dates were merely printed in order to give under the new proposal the exact limit of time which this House has already sanctioned under the Credits Act. There is not an extension of a single day. The proposals of the Government were economical while not extending any of our obligations. Nobody is asked to come into this scheme who does not require it. If the banks can do the business the banks will do the business. As a matter of fact these are not the terms on which this business is done. All applications under the scheme must be passed through the Department by the bankers, whose recommendation must be attached.

Mr. S. SAMUEL: The point I put was that the bankers at the present moment
are so full of goods that they have little money to dispose of now that the Government advance the money to traders.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: If the bankers can do the business the bankers will do the business. At the present moment there lies in the portfolios of the Department an application from a certain very distinguished company which has created trade with Rumania in which the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. S. Samuel) firm has an interest, and which has applied for a considerable advance under this Department's scheme.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Why bring that up?

Mr. S. SAMUEL: As the hon. Gentleman mentions that, I may say that my firm were asked to finance this business, and as we did not want to put up several millions sterling, we said very plainly we should not finance it except with the Government guarantee.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I heartily accept that proposition. If it is business which is good enough and which the hon. Gentleman is prepared to do in partnership with the Government, that is business of which the Government need not be afraid.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Why mention it at all?

HON. MEMBERS: Why not?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I think I am quite justified in mentioning that.

Mr. S. SAMUEL: There is no harm in it.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Absolutely no harm. It is the type of business which the Department can do and which I feel sure will be very sound business. It has been suggested that this is interference with the banking interest. This scheme has been discussed over and over again by the President of the Board of Trade with the bankers, and what is the objection that has been raised? Not that this is interference with ordinary banking business. That was not the difficulty we had in coming to terms. The difficulty we had with the bankers was that they saw that here is business which they agree ought to be done, which is very desirable to do in the interests of British trade, but they think the Government ought to
take the whole of the risks, and you ought not to call upon the banks to take any of these exceptional risks. That is the real position. We now come forward with this as a practical proposal. Finally, if we are to get the views of the business community—we get isolated views put forward—I do not think we can get it better than from the considered opinion of the chambers of commerce, and the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) has reminded us that the Associated Chambers of Commerce regard this as a practical suggestion and promised to give us, as I know they will, their wholehearted support in the working of the scheme. I will only say one word in regard to credits to the British Empire. Is it really unreasonable to extend this to the British Empire? Is it really unreasonable that we should treat with the best markets that we can get, both actual and potential? I make no hesitation in asking the Committee, as I hope they will, now to come to a decision, after a very full Debate?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I think the hon. Member knows me very well by this time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed"!] I have had one or two passages at arms with him across the floor, but I want to put two specific questions. First of all, is this scheme going to be extended to Russia, which is a great potential market to the British manufacturer, and secondly, whether he has considered in any way the question of possible objections to extending this scheme to mandated areas? The whole question of mandates looms very large on the other side of the Atlantic.

Sir HAROLD SMITH: hink you are talking nonsense as you always do. You talk nonsense every time you get up.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am not talking nonsense on this occasion. The hon. Gentleman is not only rude but wrong on this occasion. The whole question of mandated areas is being very closely examined on the other side of the Atlantic and our enemies are very anxious to find any pretext for attacking us. One of their protests which they find extremely useful is under the guise of mandates, that we are trying to make exclusive markets for our own commercial interests.

Sir H. SMITH: Agreed!

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: As to mandated territories, I do not think any suggestion can be made that we are exploiting mandated territories. As regards Russia, we do not propose at the present stage to extend the export credits facilities to Russia.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Why not?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I will explain the reason. The basis of credit must be the acceptance of the honouring of obligations whether in the past or the future. I think it would be hardly reasonable to ask the Committee at the present stage when we do not yet know to what extent Russia is going to acknowledge obligations to include Russia.

Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: I remember very distinctly the original Resolution dealing with this export credit matter. We were assured then that there was an enormous demand for several of these devastated areas in Central Europe. Now they come to this House and say that there is no demand from Central Europe, but there is an enormous demand from the British Colonies. We have heard no fact proving that there is any necessity whatever for extending the scheme to the British Empire. I merely rise to ask whether this scheme is to apply to Australia. I understand that there is an embargo on remittances of capital from Australia to this country. How can you have any guarantee system of bill payment between two countries one of which has an embargo on the export of credit in that way? It appears to me that if Australia has an

embargo on the export of credit it is impossible to trade with her either by way of guarantee through the banks or Government, or in any private capacity. I believe myself that the whole of this business can be done through the existing banking organisations as is proved by the fact that this scheme has failed in dealing with Central Europe, and so will it fail in dealing with the British Empire. I would like to point out that, this Financial Resolution clearly indicates that the Board of Trade can sanction this scheme as between people in this country—people who are shipping goods from Newcastle to South Wales can obtain the same facilities as if they were exporting to a foreign country. I would like the Department to give an answer to that, and I should like to have some proof that this extension of the overseas credit system is necessary.

Question put,
That it is expedient to extend the Overseas Trade (Credits and Insurance) Act, 1920, to the giving of guarantees in connection with export transactions and to amend the said Act as regards the countries in respect of which it applies, and to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums required in connection with the giving of such guarantees, so, however, that the amounts outstanding at any time in respect of credits and guarantees shall not together exceed the amount now authorised under the said Act as regards credits, and of any expenses incurred by the Board of Trade by reason of such extension and amendment of the said Act as aforesaid.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 88; Noes, 9.

Division No. 125.]
AYES.
[1.45 a.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Evans, Ernest
Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Kidd, James


Atkey, A. R.
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Kiley, James Daniel


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Forrest, Walter
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Lindsay, William Arthur


Barnston, Major Harry
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Lorden, John William


Betterton, Henry B.
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Loseby, Captain C. E.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Glanville, Harold James
Lowther, M.-Gen. Sir H. C. (Penrith)


Borwick, Major G. O.
Green, Albert (Derby)
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Molson, Major John Elsdale


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hailwood, Augustine
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Bruton, Sir James
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Murray, John (Leeds, West)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Murray, William (Dumfries)


Casey, T. W.
Hood, Joseph
Nall, Major Joseph


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Neal, Arthur


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Coats, Sir Stuart
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parker, James


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.


Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Sutherland, Sir William
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)
Wise, Frederick


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Townley, Maximilian G.
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)



Shaw, Capt. William T. (Forfar)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward
Mr. McCurdy and Colonel Leslie


Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)
Williams, C. (Tavistock)
Wilson.


Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud



NOES.


Gillis, William
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Hayday, Arthur
Morgan, Major D. Watts



Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Waterson, A. E.
Colonel Penry Williams and Major




Barnes.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE [CONSOLIDATED FUND].

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to make provision for the financial arrangements of the year—

1. To authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums as may be required for the purpose of any sinking fund to be established in connection with the three and one-half per cent. Conversion Loan redeemable in nineteen hundred and sixty-one:
2. To charge on the Consolidated Fund—

(a) the principal and interest of any securities which may be issued under Section sixty of the Finance Act, 1916; and
(b) any sums which may be required for the expenses of the exchange of securities under the said Section or of the cancellation of any securities issued thereunder; and
(c) any sums which may be required for the remuneration of the Banks of England and Ireland in connection with the management of any securities so issued.

3. That—

(a) the following amounts outstanding in respect of advances made out of the Civil Contingencies Fund, namely, twenty-one million six hundred and fifty thousand pounds in respect of an advance made to the Royal Commission on Sugar Supplies for the purchase of sugar, one million and fifty thousand pounds in respect of an advance made to the Board of Trade for the purchase of zinc concentrates and spelter, and three hundred and fifty thousand pounds in respect of an advance made to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries for flax production, should be written off from the assets of the said Fund, and the amount to be repaid to the Exchequer under the Civil Contin-
776
gencies Fund Act, 1919, should be reduced by an amount equal to the sum of the said amounts to be written off as aforesaid; and
(b) the amount to be so repaid to the Exchequer as aforesaid should be further reduced by the sum of one million two hundred thousand pounds.

4. That the annual sum payable under Section six of the Finance Act, 1908, out of the Consolidated Fund to the Local Taxation Account for distribution among the county councils in England and Wales in connection with the collection by them of the duties on the local taxation licences to which the said Section applies should be increased to sixty thousand pounds."—[Mr. Hilton Young.]

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): This is rather a dry morsel with which to close the evening. These are the money Resolutions which are necessary to lead up to certain Clauses which are printed in italics in the Finance Bill. It will be within the knowledge of the House that these Resolutions are distinguished from those which the House has already passed in Committee of Ways and Means by the circumstances that those already passed are strictly Ways and Means Resolutions and are necessary to precede the imposition of the taxes, but this Resolution, which is now presented to the House, is a general money Resolution only necessary in so far as the Clauses to which it leads up may or will impose something in the nature of a charge upon the Consolidated Fund. The Resolution is, I fear, of a somewhat technical sort, but the Committee will no doubt desire that in the fewest possible words I should lay before them what its general import and effect will be.

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: A full explanation.

Mr. YOUNG: The first paragraph eats up to Clause 32 of the Finance
Bill, which is the Clause necessary in order to give legal power to carry out the arrangement for the Conversion Loan as regards the charge which may come upon the Fund in question in connection with the proposed sinking fund which the Committee will remember is a sinking fund of 1 per cent. in every half-year when the price falls below 90. The second part of the Resolution relating to the Conversion Loan is, I fear, of a very definitely technical sort, but in substance it is this: That the Treasury have power to issue what securities are necessary for substitution for the converted securities, and they have power to charge all these newly issued securities upon the Consolidated Fund except in respect of a single case which is a case of the fourth series of War Bonds falling due in 1924. This procedure is necessary in order to give the Treasury power to charge the new securities on the Consolidated Fund in that case.
The third paragraph is that which leads up to Clause 39 of the Finance Bill. The purpose of this paragraph is only indirectly to lay a charge upon the Consolidated Fund. It is rather in the nature of a resolution to postpone a repayment to the Consolidated Fund. It is that Clause which provides for the bringing to an end of the special enlargement of the capital of the Civil Contingencies Fund which was made directly after the War. The Committee will remember that immediately after the War, in order to wind up the system of financing trading transactions by Votes of Credit, which was naturally one capable of great extensions and vagueness, there was substituted the issue of larger capital to the Civil Contingencies Fund in order to provide for these trading operations. With the end of the period of trading operations by the Government I am glad to say it is now possible to reduce the capital of the Civil Contingencies Fund and to write off or repay that very great extension of capital at the time to which I refer. In the present condition of the Fund, the capital amounts to £31,500,000, from which sums have already been repaid, and the additional capital has to be repaid by 30th September. In order to clear the Fund before that date, and to avoid having to come to the House for powers to continue the increase, it is proposed to write off the losses on capital amounting to £23,050,000, made up, as has been set out in this Resolution, of
£21,650,000 for the Sugar Commission, and £1,050,000 for zinc concentrates and spelter. That leaves the Fund in this condition, that when it has written off the sum to which I have already alluded, £23,050,000, there will be a balance of £7,250,000 to be repaid to the Exchequer and go towards the cancellation of debt. The Committee will see that this is a formal transaction, which is necessary in order to enable us to bring the Special Contingencies Fund down to a normal basis of operations.
2.0 A.M.
Finally, the fourth paragraph is a small matter which leads up to Clause 41 of the Finance Bill, which makes provision for the increase of the sums payable to county councils in respect of local taxation, the grants being increased from £40,000 to £60,000 a year. This is a grant to the county councils towards the cost of levying local taxation licences, the dog licences, gun licences and armorial bearings, and so on. It has long been maintained by the local authorities that the contribution was inadequate in consideration of the increased cost of living, and, after going into the matter very thoroughly with the local authorities, it has been decided that it is just and necessary to increase this grant from £40,000 to £60,000 a year. That is what is provided for in the Clause to which I have referred and to which this paragraph of the Resolution now leads. This Resolution is preliminary to matters which are contained in Clauses in the Finance Bill and which will be raised in the course of discussion of the Finance Bill. It is a formal step, and I trust I have succeeded in making clear its rather technical provisions to the Committee. I commend it to the House.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not know whether hon. Members have quite caught the drift of the remarks, but if they have they will be equally surprised with myself to know that, among other sums involved, was one for £23,000,000. I must begin with an emphatic protest against this being taken at two o'clock in the morning. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed."] I am prepared to sit up all night in order that these heavy financial commitments should be fully examined, and I must say I do not think the explanation of the hon. Gentleman was adequate. In the first place
there are four Resolutions. I take it you will put these Resolutions separately. They are entirely different, and I imagine that the Question will be put from the Chair four times. For the sake of brevity, and in order that the hon. Gentleman may reply to all four together, I should like to deal with them briefly and seriatim. It seems to me the first paragraph of the Resolution raises the question, What is the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in further inflating the public funds by borrowing? This raises the whole matter of the 3½ per cent. Conversion Loan. I confess immediately that I do not care to discuss the suitability or otherwise of this type of loan if any Member present with greater financial knowledge is prepared to examine it, but at the same time I feel that it is one's duty to protest against yet another issue of a loan. It has not been well received by the financial public; it has had a bad Press, and I am glad to see that the Government are not going in for a vast and expensive publicity campaign, because I very much fear that it will be a failure. The last issues have depreciated so much in value that Government stocks have not become popular with the investing public. The one thing we ought to have been able to avoid this year was new borrowing, and I know that the Financial Secretary, if he had had his way in 1919, would have been able so to reduce that Debt by other means that this fresh borrowing would not have been necessary. But he was then a Back Bencher, and his remarks did not receive the attention from the Front Bench that they would now. The golden opportunity was lost, and it is now too late for the great, heroic, drastic reduction of Debt in which he and I believed. In the meantime, here we are faced with fresh borrowing. It is a pretty commentary on the financial policy of the Government. So much for the first paragraph of the Resolution. Personally, if I can can get anyone to support me, I am prepared to vote against it. This is not the time for fresh borrowing, if it car; be avoided, because it is not fair to the industrial concerns of the country to fight with them for the limited amount of capital available.
With regard to the second paragraph of the Resolution, I do not propose to say anything at all; the explanation satisfied me. But in regard to the
third paragraph of the Resolution some further explanation is desirable. If the supply days do not include these particular Estimates, we shall have no opportunity of discussing the trading operations of the Government in sugar, on which they have lost £21,650,000. Their operations with regard to sugar have been severely criticised in more than one competent quarter. There was the criticism of a Scottish gentleman named Cairns, which has never been adequately answered. I think we should have had some explanation of this heavy loss. The real truth about sugar is that we refused to trade with Central Europe, where we used to get our cheap sugar in the past, and in consequence we have had to buy sugar from Cuba and elsewhere at a high price and subsidise its low-priced sale to the public, thus keeping down discontent at a very high cost to the taxpayer. Similarly, unless these matters are taken on one of the Supply days we shall have no opportunity of going into the operations of the Board of Trade in purchasing zinc and spelter on which they have lost £1,050,000. I am sorry to see that the deputy head of the Board of Trade, who was in the House recently, has now left the Chamber, and apparently it is not intended to offer us any explanation. Is it the fact that we are still committed to purchase the zinc output of Australia for three years? The information we got was that just about the end of the War we purchased the zinc output for five years, as the result, I suppose, of the pressure brought to bear upon us by the able and astute Australian representative to this country, Mr. Hughes. I am told we paid for zinc at the time of the Armistice the very high world prices and now, of course, the price of zinc has gone down considerably. No wonder the Board of Trade comes forward with a demand from us for £1,050,000 for zinc concentrates and spelter. With regard to flax production, for which £350,000 is required, I think we might have some explanation about this. Are we still proceeding with this artificial production of flax in this country? Are we trying to grow flax uneconomically here, when, by a different policy, we could have got flax from the natural sources of supply? It would be just as sensible to try and grow cotton under glass. We ought to be informed
whether we are throwing more good money after bad in connection with fostering flax growing in this country. Of all the mad schemes of the Government, I think this is one of the maddest. The total amount comes to this tremendous sum of, I understand, £23,500,000.
I now come to the fourth paragraph of the Resolution, and on this I wish to ask specific questions which I know the Treasury will be able to answer. We are told that local authorities make a loss for collecting gun licences, dog licences, game licences, etc.

Mr. YOUNG: I did not say they made a loss. They have expenses.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Well, if they are not making a loss why are we going to give them an extra £20,000. If I understand the Financial Secretary aright, in the past we have given a grant-in-aid of £40,000 for the expenses of administering the collection of these various petty taxes—game licences, dog licences, armorial bearings and these sumptuary taxes which have come down to us from the ages. But this is not sufficient this year and we are for the first time increasing it to £60,000. The question I wish to ask is, does this mean increased wages, bonuses, and so forth, for the tax collectors? If so, we should be informed of it. If that is the case, I propose to vote against this fourth paragraph of the Resolution. We are demanding from the manual workers, the wage workers of this country, that they should accept reduced wages. When we are doing that, on the one hand, it is not fair, on the other, to proceed to pay out of public money in increasing the wages of Government servants like these tax collectors. We ought to be frankly told by the Treasury whether this extra £20,000 is to pay war bonuses. In any case, how is it that these local authorities have been able to get along till this year, and why is it suddenly discovered that they require an extra £20,000?

Major Sir KEITH FRASER: Agreed!

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: There are four Resolutions here, and the second I have passed over. These Resolutions involve a very substantial sum of money, amounting to £30,000,000, and I think we are entitled to ask one or two
questions about them. Perhaps the hon. Member for Warrington (Sir H. Smith) will reinforce me in this.

Sir H. SMITH: You are talking non-sense.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It is nonsense to the extent of £31,500,000. I think we are entitled to some explanation, which need not be long, from the Financial Secretary.

Major BARNES: The Committee is impatient in discussing these Resolutions. The Committee is not very fair; it should be impatient with the Government who is getting this through at this hour in the morning. We have been told that this is not the occasion upon which to discuss this matter. I understand that these matters might be discussed at a later stage on the Finance Bill. It was suggested by the Financial Secretary who introduced it that this was merely a formal thing, that we should have every opportunity of discussing it. That mis-represents the importance of a Financial Resolution if it is not to draw special attention that you are going to spend money. To take a Resolution of this importance at two in the morning and then for impatience to be shown because one or two Members in the discharge of their public duty wish to draw attention to the fact is, I suggest, a little unreasonable. I want to make a suggestion which I think would have the effect of shortening this Debate. It is this.
In the presentation of the third paragraph of the Resolution—I am not going to deal with the other because they have been so ably and exhaustively dealt with by my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy)—it was not really very clear as it was put by the Minister in charge whether this was simply a matter of book-keeping or whether we are really dealing here with an actual loss of £23,000,000. I am going to proceed on the assumption that what we are dealing with is an actual loss to the extent of £23,000,000. If I am wrong—

Mr. YOUNG: As regards the present Resolution to write off the Civil Contingency Fund, it is a mere matter of book-keeping providing that the capital of the fund should be reduced in one way rather than in another. On the Sugar Trading
Accounts there is no doubt a large dead loss, though it is not the same as the figure given here.

Major BARNES: As between the Civil Contingencies Fund and the Exchequer it is a matter of bookkeeping, but as regards the sum total of public money it is a matter of loss and the amount of the loss is not really known or ascertained at the present moment. I cannot quite understand why, if these accounts are not wound up and if the loss is not known, it should be dealt with at this particular moment and why we should have these circumstantial figures of £23,050,000 brought before us. What I want to suggest—is this to shorten the Debate? Will the Financial Secretary undertake that before we come to discuss this 39th Clause on the Finance Bill and the Short Schedule, he will place in the hands of the Members a Memorandum dealing with the accounts of the Royal Commission on sugar supplies, the account with regard to zinc concentrates and spelter and also with regard to flax, and that when the House comes to deal with this matter it will be in possession of full information? If the hon. Gentleman will give me this undertaking now, that would relieve me of the necessity of saying anything further on this Resolution. If the hon. Gentleman cannot give or will not give this undertaking; if he is not prepared to put the House into possession of these facts, I am bound to go on.

Mr. YOUNG: May I answer that point at once? If what my hon. Friend asks for is a full memorandum dealing with all the accounts—with the whole of the trading accounts of the Sugar Commission, of zinc concentrates, and spelter dealings and flax production—I do not think I can promise such accounts before we come to deal with these matters in Committee. The full report of all the trading transactions of the Sugar Commission is to appear very shortly, but I cannot say it will appear before we come to these Clauses in Committee. It is in preparation, and will be laid before the House shortly. What I can do, and, since this is a very technical and difficult matter, what I will do, is before we come to the Civil Contingencies Fund, which, as the hon. Member rightly says, is Clause 39 of the Finance Bill, I will undertake to
lay a White Paper, which will explain the transactions of the Civil Contingencies Fund and also the present transactions in which we are engaged in writing off sums on this account.

Major BARNES: I do not want to ask for the preparation of detailed accounts. That would take a great deal of time, but I do think that the House should be in possession of sufficient information as to the question of why and how this loss has been made, and to justify Members in agreeing to this course being taken. That may be done in a comparatively brief memorandum showing the circumstances under which a loss of £21,000,000 has been made on sugar, of £1,000,000 on zinc concentrates and spelter, and of £350,000 on flax. I do not think that is an unreasonable request to make. The Committee agrees with me, and I hope that the Minister will see that a memorandum to that extent will be given. I do not think that he has quite promised that. He has promised a statement showing how the Civil Contingencies Fund has been dealt with. That is not a promise of a brief, clear statement of how this loss has been made.

Mr. YOUNG: The losses on sugar are entirely due to the sudden and rapid fall in the sugar market during the last year of the trading. It would be impossible to avoid that loss without charging the sugar manufacturers and the sugar consumers here prices above the world prices for sugar; in a single word, the cause of the loss here is the sharp fall in sugar prices. As regards zinc concentrates, spelter and flax, the losses we are writing off here may very likely be covered by sums to be recovered subsequently. The only reason we have written them off now from the Civil Contingencies Fund is in order that we may wind up the increases in the Fund by 30th September.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: If the losses on sugar were made entirely in the last 12 months, I would like to know what stocks of sugar, in sterling value, the Government held 18 months after the Armistice? This is a very serious matter, which ought to be debated in proper wakeful hours. It is a very serious thing to find that a Government Department, in transactions which relate to periods 18 months to 2½ years after the Armistice,
can lose a sum amounting to £21,000,000. I know all about the drop in prices. The whole matter comes back to the point that the Government should have closed up its commitments long before and got out of trading transactions altogether. If the hon. Member will say that on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill we can discuss these matters, I would adjourn what I have to say until that time.

Mr. YOUNG: It is not for me to say, but I suppose that anything which is in order to discuss now will certainly be in order then.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: I understand the hon. Member to say that this is merely a form of procedure, but he is asking the Committee to write off losses without having particulars, and the particulars may, or may not, be given later. The Committee may ask: Are there not other commitments on the part of the Government in any other branch of trade which will necessitate the Committee writing off further losses? I would like to know these further losses with regard to wool and other things. It is not a Party matter. We ought to protest against the Committee being asked at 2.30 in the morning to discuss losses of nearly £25,000,000 without having the facts before them for 1914–15, 1915–16, 1916–17 and 1917–18. I want to know whether, when the Armistice came, there was a change in policy. May I ask the Committee whether any Member dreamt he would hear what the Minister said that this loss on sugar has been sustained in the last twelve months?

Mr. YOUNG: No, no. It was the last trading year of the Commission.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: What year was that? The hon. Gentleman said the loss was sustained when the fall came in the price of sugar. It is common knowledge that that came last year. It is also common knowledge that it came in the autumn of last year. Was the Government speculating in sugar last year, or did the Government hold enormous for-ward stocks on which they sustained this loss? Has the Government realised the sugar or is the loss a book-keeping loss representing the price at which the con-tracts were entered into and the present market value? Surely the Committee ought to have this knowledge. These
business matters ought to be discussed in a business-like way and in business hours, and not at half-past two in the morning.

Mr. WATERSON: I think we are justified in entering a protest similar to that which has just been entered by several Members from this side of the Committee. Naturally, as one interested particularly in economy, I feel justified in asking for more details in connection with these terrible losses upon stocks of sugar. If these great losses have been made upon stocks of sugar, it should have been the duty of the Government at a very early period to put the sugar on the market in order that the consumers might have had it. At that time there was a great demand for sugar, and the money might have been realised. The matter is so important that the Debate ought to be adjourned to a more suitable occasion, when Members would have a fuller opportunity of discussing the question. In addition to that we have had nothing from the Minister in charge as to the 50 per cent. increase which is now being given towards the collection of the various licences that have been referred to. I should like to know on what grounds the Ministry can justify an action of that character, and, as no explanation is forthcoming, I feel bound to move, "That this House do now Adjourn."

The CHAIRMAN: That Motion is not in order when the House is in Committee.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move to leave out paragraph (3).
This would have the effect of leaving out the part of the Resolution dealing with the transfer of the alleged assets or liabilities of some £23,500,000. We all agree that the hon. Member has done his best to explain the situation, but he has told us that he has not got the whole of the accounts to hand yet, for the simple reason that they have not been made up by the Sugar Commission. In the circumstances I think the Committee is well justified in asking for the full figures. I associate myself with the protest against taking such an important matter at so late an hour in the sitting, but, in addition, I think we ought to have in front of us the documents that the hon. Member has mentioned showing the whole of the trading accounts. This is a matter that ought to be fully explained
to us by the Minister in charge of the Board of Trade. Hon. Members were being rationed when the Government had tremendous stocks, which they might have disposed of and have evaded this loss. Further, I have not had a reply to my question as to whether we we are still purchasing the output of Australian zinc products at the world price at the end of the War? Further, are we still proposing to spend

Main Question again proposed.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I think we ought to have some explanation of paragraph 4.

Mr. YOUNG: I am afraid that some of the more interesting parts of the Debate have been those which have been least relevant for the purpose of the Motion. As the Committee will appreciate, in this Motion we are concerned very much with the Consolidated Fund and not with the accounts of these trading concerns. Let me refer to one or two points raised. The hon. Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) referred to the first paragraph of the Resolution and the borrowing operation. I would like to correct any misapprehension that may have been left by his speech that any fresh borrowing is referred to or dealt with in that Clause at all. There is no fresh borrow-

money on subsidising flax growing in this country? The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but we ought to be told about these very important matters. I beg to move my Amendment, and I hope the Government in their own interests will accept it.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 67; Noes, 8.

Division No 126.]
AYES.
[2.40 a.m.


Atkey, A. R.
Green, Albert (Derby)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.


Barnston, Major Harry
Hailwood, Augustine
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Betterton, Henry B.
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Borwick, Major G. O.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Shaw, Capt. William T. (Forfar)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Bruton, Sir James
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Casey, T. W.
Kidd, James
Sutherland, Sir William


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Lindsay, William Arthur
Townley, Maximilian G.


Coats, Sir Stuart
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Lowther, M.-Gen. Sir H. C. (Penrith)
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Evans, Ernest
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Wise, Frederick


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Murray, William (Dumfries)
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Forrest, Walter
Nall, Major Joseph



Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Neal, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Dudley Ward.


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Parker, James





NOES.


Gillis, William
Morgan, Major D. Watts
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Glanville, Harold James
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)
Major Barnes and Colonel Penry


Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Waterson, A. E.
Williams.


Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Wilson, James (Dudley)

ing. It is entirely a conversion loan substituting one security for another.

Let me pass now to the third paragraph of the Resolution, which has caused the greatest number of inquiries. Here let me say that the loss which I have referred to upon this account of £21,650,000 is not net, because there are to be set against it at some future time receipts by way of set-off which it is expected may amount to between £4,000,000 and £5,000,000. It is necessary as a matter of book-keeping to write the losses off the capital account of the Civil Contingencies Fund in order that we may be able to wind these matters up by 30th September. The next matter to which I am going to pass is that of zinc concentrates and spelters. I was asked whether these trading concerns were yet wholly wound up. No. There are contracts still outstanding for
zinc concentrates that have considerable periods still to run. I think the last expires in 1930.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is that for the whole of the zinc output?

Mr. YOUNG: No, subject to a maximum of 250,000 tons per annum.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it possible to give the price? The in-formation which I have, and which I would like to check, is that we got this zinc at a price which was then the world's price—at the time of the Armistice, there or thereabouts—and are we now buying this very large quantity of zinc at this price, or is there any let out?

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: Will the hon. Gentleman also kindly explain what was the policy of the Government in entering into this contract?

Mr. YOUNG: I am afraid I cannot go in very great detail into these contracts, because really that is a matter of fact, and the question of the whole policy in dealing with these articles is totally irrelevant to the reduction of the Civil Contingencies Fund, which is the object of the Clause. There are these losses to be written off, against which there may, in the future, be assets to be set, and in order to get the accounts of the Civil Contingencies Fund clear we have to write them off now before 30th September. A question was addressed as to the continuation of the operation in flax. The state of affairs there is that no further business is being carried on in connection with flax cultivation by the State. The factories and undertakings have been disposed of. Finally, the question was asked as to what is the cause for the increase in the expenses of the collection of the local taxation licences. Generally speaking, the principal increase is in the payment of the inspection staff. Inspection is done partly, by the officers of the county councils. The cause of the increased cost to the local authority is the general circumstance of the rise in wages. It has been long under consideration. It is no new and sudden provision this year, but the result of protracted negotiations in which the county councils have argued and argued, I believe with justice, that the increases have been long overdue. These are all the matters raised
in the course of the discussion and I hope the Committee will now see its way to pass the Resolution.

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: I should like to ask whether this loss of £21,000,000 on the Sugar Commission's transactions is the final closing of the account or are there any further losses to come?

Mr. YOUNG: I can only repeat what I have said. I am very desirous of giving all the information required, but it is really covered by the answer I have already given. The Report of the accounts of the Sugar Commission will be presented shortly, but not at the present time. As my hon. Friend knows, no doubt, there are no further stocks of sugar being purchased or have been purchased for many months by the Government.

Mr. JAMES WILSON: I am astounded at the flippant way in which this proposed expenditure of £23,000,000 has been presented. It does appear to me that the spending of a few millions here or there to cloak the failures of the present Government, of which you are the tied voters. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"] The Coalition people. It appears to me that the spending of £20,000,000, £30,000,000, or even £40,000,000 is to cloak the failures of the people to whom you have sworn allegiance, rightly or wrongly; but when it comes to a question of spending £9,000,000, £10,000,000, or £15,000,000 to give working men reasonable conditions or to give the miner who has to go down into the bowels of the earth—

The CHAIRMAN: This argument is not pertinent to the Resolution now before the Committee.

Mr. J. WILSON: I am sorry. It does appear to me that the supporters of the Government when it comes to be a Government Vote are prepared to vote any amount of money at the public expense, quite regardless of the public interest, so as to cloak the failures of the present Government to whom they are the tide allies and the bound supporters. But I do not think this Committee is entitled on a question like this, and at this hour, of the moment—[Laughter]—to approach it in a flippant and light-hearted manner. The real issue is the voting away of £23,000,000 of the taxpayers' money. The hon. Mem-
ber for Warrington (Sir H. Smith) has admitted to me that his business profession is such that he cannot afford to devote his time to attending to the business of the House of Commons.

Sir H. SMITH: I do not understand what relevancy these observations have to the Resolution before the Committee; but I do submit, for any hon. Member, however inexperienced, to make a charge against another hon. Member of that sort, which is based entirely upon an alleged private conversation in this House, is without precedent whatsoever, and is not only irrelevant to the Debate, but when the hon. Member has been longer in this House he will learn that it is a gross breach of every tradition which is known to this House. As he has named me and made this charge against me, I refute and deny every allegation. It is entirely untrue that I made any such comment. I have never met the hon. Member or seen the hon. Member in my life until within three months ago.

The CHAIRMAN: I did not understand that a charge had been made against the hon. and learned Gentleman. On the other hand, it seems to me that the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dudley (Mr. J. Wilson) was rather, what I may term, circumlocutory.

3.0 A.M.

Mr. J. WILSON: My attention was drawn by the interruption of the hon. Gentleman. What I do protest against is this: I feel that at this hour the Committee ought not to be asked to vote away millions of pounds of the ratepayers', of the taxpayers' money. At this moment there is a situation prevailing in this country which everyone deplores and every one of us would like to see brought to an end at the earliest possible moment. I trust that this Committee, tied as it is, may free itself from its bondage and vote against this Resolution, which commits the Committee to spending money which,

under the circumstances, can neither be justified nor defended. For that reason I trust we shall vote against the Government on this Vote.

Mr. WATERSON: The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has made us more confounded than we were before he spoke. We cannot understand the reason why the Government should be allowed to enter into contracts of such long standing. It does seem exceedingly unreasonable that we should enter into contracts for 1930 for the zinc concentrates referred to in the Resolution. With relation to flax, one is reminded that we spent quite £3,000,000 in flax production which, according to the statement which has been made, has been entirely thrown away; which has been a waste, and a tax upon the resources of the taxpayers of this country. It would have been better, and we could have saved the whole of this £3,000,000 if the Government had adopted a wise policy in connection with trading relationship with Russia. Russia has had a considerable amount of flax which she was anxious to export to this country, and it would, at any rate, be an exchange of commodities. We should have been able to get employment in this country, and get many of the men at work who are receiving the unemployment dole. The statement has been made that the position is really graver than before the explanation was given. I really feel that at this time in the morning it would have been wiser for the Government, in the interests of its own honour, to have deferred discussion on this matter to a full House which would have been fresh. The House would then have been able to have more satisfactory results. I regret that the Government should press through a thing of this kind in a way which is totally unsatisfactory and cannot be a credit to the Government.

Main Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 63; Noes, 8.

Division No. 127.]
AYES.
[3.10 a.m.


Atkey, A. R.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Fraser, Major Sir Keith


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Coats, Sir Stuart
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham


Barnston, Major Harry
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John


Betterton, Henry B.
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Green, Albert (Derby)


Borwick, Major G. O.
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Hailwood, Augustine


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Evans, Ernest
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Bruton, Sir James
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Forrest, Walter
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)


Casey, T. W.
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)


Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sutherland, Sir William


Kidd, James
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Townley, Maximilian G.


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Parker, James
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Lindsay, William Arthur
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Loseby, Captain C. E.
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir H. C. (P'nrith)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur
Wise, Frederick


Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Shaw, Capt. William T. (Forfar)
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Murray, William (Dumfries)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)



Nall, Major Joseph
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Neal, Arthur
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)
Mr. McCurdy and Colonel Leslie




Wilson.


NOES.


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Morgan, Major D. Watts



Gillis, William
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Mr. Waterson and Mr. Glanville.


Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Wilson, James (Dudley)

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — RAILWAYS [MONEY].

Committee to consider of making provision, out of moneys provided by Parliament, for the discharge of liabilities arising in connection with the possession of railways, and for the payment of such other expenses as may be incurred in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to provide for the reorganisation and further regulation of railways and the discharge of liabilities arising in connection with the possession of railways, to amend the Law relating to railways,
and to extend the duration of the Rates Advisory Committee—(King's Recommendation signified)—To-morrow.—[Mr. Hilton Young.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Monday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Nineteen Minutes after Three o'Clock a.m.